Appeal 3301849
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
10 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
retrospective application for the retention of boundary wall with timber inserts and sliding gates to the front of the property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of boundary wall with metal fencing and sliding gates to the front of the property at [site address] , Shropshire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application ref: 22/01706/FUL, dated 30 March 2022 and subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this document.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The development had been carried out prior to the application to the Council. I have determined this appeal on the basis of the Council’s amended description of development as “erection of boundary wall with metal fencing and sliding gates to the front of the property” as it is more precise.
Section 04
[name]
The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene and surrounding area, and • the effect on pedestrian safety.
Section 05
Character and appearance
No. [site address] is a detached house situated next to two neighbouring detached houses and an open area of land which is under development as the Shrewsbury Business Park. The frontages to development in the immediate area vary. No.[address] has an open frontage and No.243 is mainly open with a section of front boundary hedge. Prior to the development being carried out the appeal dwelling had two separate access points to [address], separated by a central section of hedge and a low vertical timber fence. No.245 has been re-styled and has a marked difference in its character and appearance when compared with the two neighbouring dwellings.
The walls, sliding gates, metal inserts and associated lighting which have been erected at No.245 contrast with other front residential boundaries because of the contemporary design, styling, colour and use of materials. However, the new frontage does complement the modern character and appearance of the re-styled house at the appeal site. It is also seen in the context of the adjacent modern commercial development that exists to the south and which will be added to as other units are constructed and further changing the appearance of the [address] frontage.
The appellant has offered to paint the colour of the walls and pillars, suggesting a Dove grey colour to match that used in the dwelling. It is also suggested that the lighting could be restricted or excluded. The appellant has not indicated that the lighting forms a function other than being decorative and I see no reason why it could not be removed. Both these measures would reduce the visual impact of the development and may be subject to appropriate
Section 06
conditions.
In view of the setting of the site, the modern restyled design of the house and its situation as the last dwelling at this side of [address] near to the development site, I consider that, subject to conditions, the development would cause no significant harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area. It would therefore fail to conflict with [name] policy CS6 which indicates that all development should be in scale taking into account the local context and character. It would fail to conflict with Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan policy MD2 which, amongst other things, requires development to respond appropriately to the form and layout of existing development including scale. It would also not conflict with the objective of achieving well designed places in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 07
Effect on pedestrian safety
The appeal site is just within the 30-mph restricted zone. The Highway Authority has stated concerns with the lack of intervisibility with pedestrians when vehicles are leaving the site and with the principle of electric gates across the access/egress point, potentially resulting in vehicles waiting on the highway whilst they are being opened and closed. It seems to me that the previous situation including hedging would also have had restricted intervisibility for pedestrians and it is possible that the opening and closing of the electric gates would still provide some warning for footway users that a vehicle was about to leave or enter.
I note that a previous permission ref: SA/84/1116 related to the formation of a second point of access to the property and approved gates “so arranged that they cannot open over the highway”. The provision of gates would have similarly required vehicles on some occasions to wait on the highway or be parked whilst they were opened to allow access. The appellant has advised that the Council does not dispute that a 1 m high front wall and gates could be provided for the property under permitted development rights. I see little difference between the effect on the free flow of traffic from the use of electric gates as proposed, or hinged gates as previously granted permission.
I consider that the development would cause no significant increased harm to pedestrian safety. The development would therefore comply with Policy CS6 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development is safe and accessible. It would also comply with policy MD2 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan in terms of sustainability. The development would also not conflict with paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicates that development should only be prevented or refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Section 08
Conditions
I have included a condition to confirm the approved plans. Conditions requiring the removal of external lighting for the development and to paint the stonework, including the walls and pillars, are imposed in order to ensure that the visual impact of the development is acceptable in the street scene.
Section 09
Conclusion
I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.
Section 10
Schedule of Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2019-M1(00)(0001) proposed site plan and 2019-M1(00)(0002) existing and proposed elevations.
Within 3 months of the date of this permission all lighting associated with the development herby permitted shall be removed and no lighting shall be installed thereafter.
Within 3 months of the date of this permission the stonework of the development hereby permitted shall be painted in colour BS381C 694, [name] and thereafter retained in that colour.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3301849
- Application reference
- 22/01706/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Shropshire County Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000051
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 0 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 24 June 2022
- Valid date
- 24 June 2022
- Start date
- 7 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 6 October 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 21567
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21