Appeal 3314126
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
the erection of a front boundary wall and bike shed.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The development has already been constructed and I had the benefit of seeing it at my site visit.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal relates to the front boundary wall and bike store of this semi-detached house. The property is located within a suburban residential area where there is a variety of house types, including bungalows and detached properties.
The properties are built to a consistent building line which gives a degree of consistency to the area. There is a variety of front boundary features here and some have been removed completely. The great majority, however, are formed by low walls or fences, some with planting behind. The overwhelming impression is of open frontages with low and unobtrusive boundary features. This characteristic is a feature which adds positively to the area. There are some exceptions where taller features appear to have been erected so that privacy can be maintained in the gardens of corner properties. The Council refers to one such example, which has no planning history. The appeal property is not at a corner and the wall would not protect a rear/private garden area.
I can see from the submitted information that the low wall that was here prior to the appeal scheme was consistent with the character and appearance of the area that I have described. It had brick piers, said to have been 1m in height and a lower curved section of brick wall between them.
The wall which is the subject of the appeal is said to be a maximum of 1.6m in height and has a consistent height. I can see that the materials used and the design of the wall reflects that of the previous wall, to some extent. However, within the context that I have described, its height means that it forms an obtrusive feature within the street-scene. It appears unusually tall within the context of the neighbouring modest fence and walls. I consider that it is unacceptably disruptive of the character and appearance of the area and causes harm to it.
Although the Council have raised no objection to the bike store itself, the appeal scheme has an unacceptable effect on the area. Taking account of the requirements of Policies CS15 of the [name] (2012) and DM29 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), I consider that the appeal scheme is in conflict with those policies. I have taken account of all matters raised in the representations but find nothing sufficient to outweigh that conflict. Therefore, 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 188No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314126
- Application reference
- 222731
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000031
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 0
- 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
- 4 January 2023
- Valid date
- 7 January 2023
- Start date
- 9 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 19 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
- No
- 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
- 31463
- 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