Appeal 3324533
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
4 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 the erection of wooden gates and adjoining fence within an access entryway at the rear of this address.
Section 02
[name]
The development described in the heading above has already been carried out. The Council indicates that only the gates require planning permission. There are no reasons to disagree and this decision therefore focuses on the gates element of the appeal proposal.
Section 03
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 04
Reasons
The gates and fence behind it are almost 2m high and are located at the rear of the appeal property which is at the corner with [address]. They are significantly taller than the low brick boundary wall at the front of the adjacent No [address]. This height difference and the position of the gates forward of the [address] front building line appears incongruous in the street scene, particularly as most front boundaries are also bounded by low brick walls. Properties at both ends of [address] have either low to medium height fencing or low concrete board fencing but are different to the appeal proposal in terms of context and design.
The applicant seeks to improve security at the rear of 28 and [address], by preventing intruders entering the alleyway and the removal of refuse bins. The evidence indicates that the appeal proposal replaces a high boundary wall and gates which were set back from the road and behind the front of [address]. There is little evidence to indicate how the appeal scheme improves overall security. The appellant’s security requirements could be achieved by other means which could also restore natural surveillance of the space, in accordance with the principles of designing out crime. An alternative proposal could also address the fear of crime experienced by the occupiers of the neighbouring property since the scheme was erected.
Concerns raised about the safety of the structure of the gates and the structural impact of the works on a neighbouring building are more appropriately addressed by other legislation.
I conclude that the height, siting and materials of the gates result in an intrusive and unduly prominent structure which is out of keeping with and harms the street scene and is therefore detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to the broad aims of securing the protection and enhancement of visual amenity as set out in Policy GR5 Landscaping and New Development of Wirral's Unitary Development Plan which I consider is the policy most relevant to this proposal. [name] states that fencing or other suitable boundary treatments must be appropriate to the setting of the area. The proposal is also contrary to the requirement for high quality design set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
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
- 27 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3324533
- Application reference
- APPH/22/01937
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000015
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
- 21 June 2023
- Valid date
- 5 July 2023
- Start date
- 27 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 27 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
- 39392
- 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