Appeal 3304474
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
6 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 erection of a new 1.8m height closed board fence along a public highway on the east and south boundary line of the property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I have used the description of development as it appears on the appeal form as it accurately describes the development.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a 2-storey semi-detached residential dwelling in a prominent location on the corner of [address] and [address]. Properties are set back behind driveways and front gardens with low boundary treatments where they are present creating an open and spacious character.
A 1.8m high wooden fence that has been erected around the front garden of No [site address] . The height, position and location of the boundary treatment on a prominent corner is a notable incongruous addition at odds with the open character of the area.
I note the appellant’s reasoning for erecting the fence. However, this is outweighed by the harm of the development to the character and appearance of the area.
The appellant has referred to other boundary treatment used on other properties in the area in support of their case. No specific examples were provided and I did not see any of the size and nature of the appeal scheme at the time of my site visit. In any event, each case is determined on its own merits and my assessment is based on the information before me.
The development harms the character and appearance of the area and therefore conflicts with the part of Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan which requires new development to make a positive contribution to the character of the area and not have an adverse impact on the streetscene.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons identified, I conclude that 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 November 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3304474
- Application reference
- S22/1045
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Kesteven District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000141
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
- 3 August 2022
- Valid date
- 18 August 2022
- Start date
- 16 September 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 10 November 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
- 23345
- 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