Appeal 3315659
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 brick wall with metal railings between pillars and an electric gate for vehicle access.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary matter
The development which is the subject of the appeal 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 this detached property which has accommodation over 2 floors. [address] contains mainly detached 2 storey properties, although there are some bungalows and semi-detached properties. The buildings display variety in their design but all are set behind a front garden area, some hard-surfaced and used for parking.
The front boundary treatments along this road also vary. There are brick walls, fences, railings and some are completely open. However, virtually all are of modest heights and provide visually unobtrusive features to mark the distinction between public and private space. The low and informal nature of these features provides a consistent characteristic feature along the length of [address].
The development at No 7 has resulted in brick walls with piers up to around 1.7m in height and metal railings and a metal gate. The design and height of the front boundary here appears formal and rather imposing. This is strikingly at odds with the prevailing low and informal character of the great majority of properties on [address]. In my judgement, the development at No 7 has a negative effect on the character and appearance of the area, harming the street-scene.
The appellant has submitted photographs of a number of other walls and railings in the area. Firstly, I have not been provided with any planning history for these features. I was able to view a number of these during my visit to the area. I note that a number of them are smaller, of differing design and having far less visual effect than the appeal scheme. A small number are similar but, as stated above, I have been provided with no information about the planning status of them. Additionally, some do not represent successful additions to the area and I would not view them as precedents which should be followed.
Due to the unacceptable visual effect of the development, it conflicts with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘[name] and Alterations’. The appellant also indicates that the development provides for greater security. [name] acknowledge that this would be likely to be the case, I consider that this is outweighed by the negative effect that the development has on the surrounding area.
I have taken account of all matters raised in the submissions, including the date of construction of the development. However, I conclude that the harmful effects that it has are not outweighed by any other matters. Consequently, 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
- 14 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 May 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3315659
- Application reference
- P1627.22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Havering
- Planning authority code
- E09000016
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
- 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
- 30 January 2023
- Valid date
- 30 January 2023
- Start date
- 27 April 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 14 June 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
- 33994
- 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