Appeal 3328675
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Procedural Matter
The original description used was ‘replacement of front garden wall’ however the above description more accurately describes the proposal. In addition, whilst the ‘existing materials’ are described as rough cast yellow brick there appears to be no other information regarding any pre-existing wall and at the time of my site visit there was no existing front boundary feature.
Section 03
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site lies within a residential area characterised by large, detached properties predominantly of traditional appearance and character. The dwelling on the appeal site is of traditional appearance though the subject of recent works. The immediate street scene contains front boundaries marked predominantly by low brick walls, a number of which are supplemented with hedging and / or with landscaped gardens behind.
The proposal would partly comprise a low brick wall but would predominantly consist of aluminium slats set within brick pillars which would comprise the upper part of the wall and all of the gates which would take up at least half the width of the frontage. This would result in the introduction of an unduly tall and somewhat harsh boundary feature in the street scene. In addition, having regard to the predominant appearance of frontage boundaries within the surrounding street scene, it would appear as an incongruous feature, both in terms of its height and materials.
Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (2023) (EFDLP) requires new development to achieve a high quality of design that contributes to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area. Furthermore, development should demonstrate how landscaping and planting has been integrated within it. There appears to be little room for any planting within the front garden but, in any event, it would not soften the proposed boundary to an acceptable degree. Whilst this policy also supports the need to reduce the risk of crime, which the proposed boundary feature could do, this would not outweigh the visual harm resulting to the character and appearance of the street scene. I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with EFDLP policy DM9.
I have also taken into account the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework but find that the proposal would conflict with its policies that seek the creation of high quality, beautiful places and the achievement of good design, as a result of which it would fail to achieve a key aspect of sustainable development.
Section 06
Conclusions
I therefore conclude that this appeal should be 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 482No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 January 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 December 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3328675
- Application reference
- EPF/0281/23
- 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
- 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
- 31 August 2023
- Valid date
- 31 August 2023
- Start date
- 27 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 11 January 2024
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
- 44652
- 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