Appeal 3312741
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
5 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
change of use of land to allow for relocation of the fence outwards to make room for a garage extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a 2 storey semi detached dwelling adjacent to a public footpath that links one part of a residential area to another. The footpath is lined by 2 verges of landscaping, with the verge closest to No 58 owned by the appellant. It is proposed that this planted verge is changed to garden land to facilitate the erection of a garage. The proposal also includes a 1.8 metre high fence immediately adjacent to the public footpath.
The removal of the vegetation strip would create an unbalanced appearance and the erection of the fence would have an enclosing effect on the walkway. In combination the proposal would generate an incongruous addition and harm the character and appearance of the area.
The appellant has identified that the development would enable the cutting back of overgrown trees and foliage. However, this can be achieved irrespective of the development. Similarly, the removal of any rubbish along the walkway is not dependent on the development.
Whilst other elements of the scheme may be acceptable the change of use of the land and relocation of the fence would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with the part of Policy 8 of the [name] which requires development to respond to the sites immediate and local character.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons identified, I conclude that the appeal should be 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
- 4 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3312741
- Application reference
- NE/22/00444/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Northamptonshire
- Planning authority code
- Not recorded
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
- 27 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 8 December 2022
- Valid date
- 18 December 2022
- Start date
- 31 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 4 April 2023
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
- 30820
- 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