Appeal 3314584
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
erection of fencing to boundary with [address].
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice because it is more succinct than the description provided in the planning application form, and accurately describes the proposal before me. The planning application was made retrospectively, and I saw on site that the boundary fence has been constructed. Accordingly, the appeal has been determined on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the boundary fence on the character and appearance of the local area.
Section 05
Reasons
No. [site address] (No.101) is a detached dwelling located on the north side of [address], set back from the road by around 55m behind a large front garden. It has a wide frontage to [address] and along over 40m of this frontage a 1.[address] boarded timber fence has been constructed.
I observed on my site visit that there is a change in levels to the north of this part of [address] such that dwellings are sited below the road, typically set back, with open boundaries or low walls, or hedges. To the south, dwellings are set closer to the road with boundary treatments comprising predominantly low walls, or hedges. [name] note that the fencing that has been constructed is good quality, its height and solid appearance over such a length, means that it appears stark and visually prominent, out of character with the existing boundary treatment I observed.
Further, the width of [address] in this location is relatively narrow and because of this, in combination with the siting of the fence very close to the back edge of the road, it has a visually oppressive appearance within the streetscene.
I have given consideration to the appellant’s argument that the appearance of the fencing will soften with time and that it has security and safety benefits, recognising the change in level from the road to No.101. I do not, however, find these factors outweigh the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the local area, nor am I persuaded that similar benefits could not be achieved by a boundary treatment that would have less visual impact.
On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the fencing causes harm to the character and appearance of the local area. Consequently, it would conflict with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policy LP24 (a) of the Kirklees Local Plan (2019) and [name] 1 of the [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2021) which together require good design of a form, scale and details that respects and enhances the character of the area or streetscene.
Section 06
Conclusions
For the reasons given above, 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 114No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314584
- Application reference
- 2022/62/92457/W
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Kirklees Metropolitan Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000034
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
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 12 January 2023
- Valid date
- 12 January 2023
- Start date
- 20 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 28 June 2023
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Yes
- 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
- 34734
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21