Appeal 3326411
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 on the application form as “Reduce the height of the front boundary wall”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.
Section 04
Character and Appearance
The appeal property forms part of a handsome terrace of 2-storey houses that faces [address], a busy tree-lined street. It is situated within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and forms part of one of the many red brick, half-gabled terraces with paired arched recessed entrance porches which form a key constituent of the character and appearance of this part of the CA.
A tall, white-painted brick wall with railings above and piers to either end has been erected along the front boundary of the appeal property without planning permission. The proposal would comprise works to this wall to make it lower. The proposed wall would include railings along the top and piers to either end, essentially matching the design of the current wall but lower.
The proposed wall and railings would be taller than the original wall at the front of the appeal property and taller than the boundary walls at the fronts of the properties to either side, which do not feature railings above them. In addition, the overall height of the proposal – brickwork and railings - would be taller than all the front boundaries in the terrace, most of which are simple brick walls without railings or piers.
In the wider CA simple waist high brick front boundary walls are a key constituent of the character and appearance. Where taller brick walls or walls with railings and piers have been erected, most notably at 43, 45 and [address], this has resulted in clear harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and the CA.
Due to its height and appearance the proposal would result in an overly prominent and incongruous front boundary that would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The harm to this heritage asset would be less than substantial. In these circumstances Paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) requires me to weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. As the proposal simply encloses private space at the front of the appeal property its benefits solely relate to privacy and security for the property’s occupiers. There are no public benefits associated with it.
For the reasons set out above the proposal is contrary to Policies DC1, DC4 and DC8 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (2018) which, in summary, require development to be compatible with the scale and character of existing development, neighbouring properties and their setting; respect and enhance townscapes; and conserve the significance of the historic environment by protecting heritage assets.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 November 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3326411
- Application reference
- 2023/01173/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
- Planning authority code
- E09000013
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
- 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
- 21 July 2023
- Valid date
- 21 July 2023
- Start date
- 28 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 14 November 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
- 41953
- 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