Appeal 3324127
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
3 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 ‘to retain new boundary fence to side and rear with ivy trellis’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached dwelling house standing at the junction of [address] and [address]. A 2.1 m high fence has been erected to the side and rear of the property, abutting the highway. Planning permission is sought for its retention and for the installation of an artificial ivy trellis on the fence. The appeal fence replaces a small boundary wall and hedge.
Some properties in the locality have combinations of low walls, fences and hedges. However, the primary characteristic of the estate remains its relative openness due to their generally low heights.
The appeal fence stands in a prominent corner location at the road junction, with a long expanse of fencing along [address]. It is obtrusive and out of character with its surroundings, harming visual amenity. The proposed artificial ivy trellis would introduce an unnatural, man-made feature which would further harm visual amenity and the street scene. Its artificiality cannot reasonably be compared to a natural hedge. Furthermore, over time, the trellis is likely to deteriorate, having a poor appearance and exposing the fence behind.
The appellant considered the original fencing, hedging and boundary trees to be unsightly and unmanageable. He felt that their replacement was a necessary upgrade to the property which would also improve security. Nonetheless, as demonstrated above, more appropriate boundary treatments are available which would better respect the character of the surroundings.
There are a few taller front and side fences nearby, including one opposite the appeal site. However, the Council indicates that there is no record of any consent for this structure or for the other roadside fences in the locality that were identified by the appellant. But in any event, their presence demonstrates the harm that such structures can cause to the character and appearance of an area. Higher boundary treatments are not in keeping with the local character.
In conclusion, the height, length and prominent location of the boundary fence has an overbearing visual impact and appears incongruous and obtrusive within the street scene. The installation of artificial ivy trellis work would be a visually obtrusive and discordant feature adding further detriment to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For these reasons the proposed development is contrary to Policy UD1 of the Liverpool Local Plan.
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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3324127
- Application reference
- 23H/0695
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Liverpool City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000012
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
- 14 June 2023
- Valid date
- 27 June 2023
- Start date
- 26 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 28 September 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
- 39463
- 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