Appeal 3319755
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
described as infill painted metal railings between existing brick piers to the frontage boundary enclosing walls, details to match existing vehicle and pedestrian gates.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The appellant’s submissions include reference to a possible revised scheme which had been sent to the Council. It appears that the Council did not respond to this. However, it is clear that the Council’s decision was based on the original submission and it is this that forms the appeal scheme. I have determined the appeal on this basis and not the amended scheme.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal relates to this 2 storey detached house set within a generously sized plot. The immediate area consists of similarly proportioned houses appearing to date mainly from the inter-war period.
Within the area, the houses generally have frontages which accommodate car parking and soft landscaping. Generally, the front boundaries are formed by low walls and the overriding character is one where the low walls are backed by landscaping to give a soft and pleasant suburban character. I accept that there are some exceptions to this but the prevailing character that I describe remains.
The frontage of the appeal property is large and almost entirely hard-surfaced. The front boundary is formed by a brick wall with brick piers and metal pedestrian and vehicle gates. The brick piers are taller than many walls in the area and the 2 sets of double vehicle gates are significantly taller due to their arched design; the pedestrian gate is also of a similar appearance. The design of the gates is quite intricate and includes various decorative features.
The appeal seeks permission to erect railings between the brick piers which would match the gates. The existing piers are said to be 1.53m in height and it is stated that the railings would have a maximum height of 1.85m.
The proposed railings would appear intricate and formal. Along with their height, they would appear considerably at odds with the prevailing and far less formal appearance that exists within the area. The width that they would cover, combined with their positioning would mean that they would be visible and prominent within the street-scene. I consider that they would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the locality due to these factors.
The existing gates have an obvious visual effect on the character and appearance of the area. I understand that they were given planning permission by the Council, along with the wall and other matters, in 2008. The Council indicates that this initial proposal contained railing but were removed from the application at the request of Officers. I have taken account of the presence of the gates when determining the appeal. Whilst they exist and have been approved, they do not conform with the prevailing character that I have identified and, in my judgement, the proposed railing would have a negative effect on the area, as set out above.
The appellant indicates that the railings are required to increase security for him and his family. Although no specific incidents are referred to, I can appreciate such concerns. However, I consider that the unacceptable effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area are not outweighed by this matter. As a consequence, the proposal is contrary to those relevant part of Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy and there are no matters to outweigh this 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
- 16 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319755
- Application reference
- 20221249
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Gravesham Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000109
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
- 3 April 2023
- Valid date
- 3 April 2023
- Start date
- 20 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 16 August 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
- 37252
- 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