Appeal 3314892
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
a front garden wall.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place. It is referred to below as “the development.”
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling with an integrated garage. It is set back from the road behind a parking area and a small garden area and has a garden to the rear.
It is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of similar two storey detached dwellings. Dwellings are set back from the road behind parking areas and small garden areas. The presence of a grass verge and occasional street trees combines with front garden areas to provide a sense of spaciousness and greenery.
Further to the above, during my site visit I noted that, with the exception of Number [address], where there is a low brick wall with boundary railings, the frontages to the majority of dwellings along this part of [address] are open to the road and to one another, without boundary walls or significant boundary features other than occasional planting.
This significantly enhances the area’s sense of spaciousness and provides for a sense of uniformity, as well as a distinctive and attractive open character.
The development comprises a side wall to the boundary with Number [address] and a front wall with tall pillars. The wall is rendered.
The walls and pillars stand out as incongruous features in a location where no similar boundaries exist. As a consequence, the development draws attention to itself as an incongruous feature, out of keeping with the identified character of the area. 10.Further to the above, the incongruous appearance of the development detracts from the area’s uniform, open and spacious attributes, identified above. 11.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan1 Policies 10, 41 and 44, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314892
- Application reference
- 21/02350/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000017
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
- 0 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- 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
- 17 January 2023
- Valid date
- 17 January 2023
- Start date
- 10 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 17 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
- 31218
- 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