Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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