Appeal 3327619
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 ‘retrospective garden wall fronting the property’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The development is already in place. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis of its retention. Whilst the appellant states that he was unaware of the need for planning permission, and that the Planning Officer who visited indicated that the development was acceptable, I have dealt with the scheme before me on its planning merits.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
[site address] sits amongst residential properties, which are set back from both sides of [site address] . Whilst the form and style of the buildings are diverse, the properties’ frontages on this stretch of the road are predominantly unenclosed to the highway, or are characterised by low boundary treatment and landscaping. This gives this part of the streetscene an open, and in places, fairly verdant, character.
The front boundary at [site address] comprises a 1 metre high wall, with 2 metre high piers and gates, and slightly lower wrought iron railings. I do not doubt that the masonry, coping stones and railings are high quality materials. However, in this part of the streetscene, this tall boundary structure abutting the edge of the pavement, is a dominant, fairly stark feature, which diminishes the locally distinctive sense of openness and landscaping. It thus appears at odds with the area’s prevailing character and appearance.
I observed on my visit a front boundary wall broadly opposite this site, and a wall and gates nearby at Danbank. However, according to the Council, neither of those appears to have planning consent, and those examples are not typical of this stretch of the road.
The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of front boundary walls and railings elsewhere on [site address] , with photographs provided at pages 6 to 9 of his statement. However, many of these are a considerable distance from this site, particularly along a stretch of [site address] to the east, where the prevailing character is less open; and the visual impact of some is softened by landscaping.
For the above reasons, the boundary treatment at [site address] has harmed the character and appearance of the local area. It therefore conflicts with those parts of Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 [name] (2023) which require development to relate to its context, drawing upon local character, and to make a positive contribution to a place. It also conflicts with the similar stance at paragraphs 126 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) that development should contribute to beautiful places and be sympathetic to local character.
Having regard to all other matters raised, including representations by interested parties, the appeal is therefore 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 450No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3327619
- Application reference
- epf/2802/22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epping Forest District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000072
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
- 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
- 10 August 2023
- Valid date
- 18 August 2023
- Start date
- 29 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 30 October 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
- 41082
- 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