Appeal 3328441
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
6 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
Retention of fence.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The decision turns on the acceptability of the appearance on the street scene of the appeal front boundary fence to No. [site address] , Woodthorpe.
Section 04
Appeal site and project
The appeal concerns a recently erected fence to the front boundary of the dwelling to the rear edge of the road footway at No. [site address] . The green painted close boarded fence has been built upon a stone effect wall some 300mm high and fixed to white concrete posts at 1.8m centres. The 1.8m to 2.25m high 14 panel fronting fence also returns a short way around the front garden to No. 15 at each end. I understand that this fence replaces an earlier low wall and hedge boundary to No. 15, a section of which was demolished by a car.
Section 05
Considerations
Front boundaries to neighbouring houses to No. [address] vary in design and construction. The majority have low brick walls, most are topped by hedges of differing heights. None, in my view, had the somewhat bleak and inhospitable look of the appeal fence. I know the present fence design was pressed partly by security concerns. [name] agree with the Council that its dominant appearance prevents it from fitting in comfortably with the generally pleasant residential feel and look of its surroundings. I consider that the street scene is significantly and adversely affected, particularly by the excessive height of the fence and its considerable length of uninterrupted solidity.
It was argued that this is a small-scale development that provides safety benefits that do not cause any substantial impact upon the area. I disagree. The appeal fence may be a security comfort for those within, but not for those walking on the footway alongside who may feel discomforted by its somewhat harsh appearance. It would not, as the Appellant [name] suggested, have a neutral visual impact.
It is not a determining factor, but I am also concerned that if the fence at No. 15 was granted planning permission, similar fencing might be erected along [address]. That could lose much of its pleasant open residential character.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, 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 19331No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3328441
- Application reference
- 2023/0169
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Gedling Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000173
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
- 25 August 2023
- Valid date
- 6 September 2023
- Start date
- 22 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 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
- 40463
- 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