Appeal 3317881
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
described as ‘retrospective boundary works and planting scheme.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The plans show that the proposal seeks permission for a boundary fence reduced in height from the current 2.1m to 1.8m. These plans were considered by the Council, and I have assessed the proposal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is a suburban residential cul de sac, made up of detached properties set back from the highway behind mostly open but landscaped frontages, with off street parking. This gives the cul de sac an open sense of space.
The appeal property is prominently sited on the entrance to the street, on the corner of [address] and Woodham Park Road. As such, the fence, which extends from the front of the property to close to the pavement and encloses part of the front garden, is highly visible and extends incongruously in front of the visual building line. Further planting may offer some screening but would not completely soften nor mitigate the visual impact.
I acknowledge that directly opposite is a similarly sized fence which runs along the side boundary of No [address], however, given the sloping of the land the appeal site fence is noticeably higher (and would remain so at 1.8m), and, given the visibility of its side elevations along with its colouring, appears more visually obtrusive.
The appellant points to other examples within [address] and Woodham Park Road of boundary fencing, however these are either set back from the highway or not as prominently sited. As such, their visual impacts are not comparable.
The appellant also points to ‘unsympathetic’ extensions and alterations in the vicinity; however, these are not specifically identified and as such, I cannot give these examples any weight, notwithstanding the different types of development.
In light of the foregoing, I conclude that the fence is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The development conflicts with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020), which requires development to make a positive contribution to the Borough’s townscape and respond to the local context.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons above and having regard to all other matters raised, 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 3478No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3317881
- Application reference
- RU.22/1719
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Runnymede Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000212
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
- 0 m²
- 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 March 2023
- Valid date
- 4 March 2023
- Start date
- 20 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 20 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
- 34282
- 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