Appeal 3302527
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
for the erection of wall to replace soil bank and privet bushes set back from the highway.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Preliminary Matters
This appeal is for a retrospective development, and the works have been completed in accordance with the submitted plans. I have considered the appeal accordingly.
Section 05
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Reasons for the Recommendation
The area is defined by residential properties which are set back from the road, often with a front garden and driveway. Front boundary treatments vary but mostly comprise landscaping, a stone wall or the same with hedging atop. This garners a consistency to the street scene, the quality of which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
While the rendered wall matches the materials of the house, it is a stark contrast to other boundary treatments in the road. It accordingly disrupts the strong sense of homogeneity of the immediate area, appearing as an incongruous addition to the street scene.
While the erection of a stone wall in front of the rendered one would introduce more appropriate materials, without a scheme for such before me I cannot be sure that it would be acceptable for the appeal site. It would however constitute a material change to the development and parties may be prejudiced by my acceptance of such for this appeal. No other mitigation measures have been put before me to consider that may or may not be securable by
Section 07
conditions.
Accordingly, and for the reasons I have given, the development harms the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policies S1(g), S2 (a) and WE8 (d) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 (2014), which collectively require that developments maintain and enhance the character and appearance of street scenes and settlements.
Section 08
Other Matters
The Council has identified that the appeal site is within the [name] for greater [name] associated with the South Hams Special Area for Conservation. They have not identified any risk thereto through the appeal but in any event, I have dismissed it on other grounds and as such have not considered the matter further.
Section 09
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 10
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.
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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302527
- Application reference
- 22/00304/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Teignbridge District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000045
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 5 July 2022
- Valid date
- 8 July 2022
- Start date
- 26 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 16 December 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
- 25365
- 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