Appeal 3329371
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
for the reinstatement of front and side boundary walls.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] [address], is a detached double fronted house. It is located in a row of similar properties facing [address]. The speed limit on the road at this point is 30mph.
From the appellant’s evidence I understand that the original boundary wall to the back of the pavement and part of the wall to number 44 has fallen into disrepair and he now wants to replace it. The new wall would be built of brick with stone cappings. The front boundary wall would be 0.6metrs high with that to number 44 being 0.4 metres high. The brick walls would run between 0.[address] brick piers 1.2 metres high. The new front boundary wall has been designed to allow vehicular access to an area of parking in the front garden.
The Council have found that the proposed walls would serve to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. From what I have seen and read I have not formed a contrary view.
Given the speed limit of [address] Kent County Council, the Highway Authority, require minimum 2.4 x 43 metre visibility splays in both directions as well as 2.0 x 2.0 pedestrian splays. In accordance with standard advice there should be no obstruction higher that 0.6 metres within the defined visibility splays.
The achievable splays, taking into account any existing obstacles such as the retained pier to the wall at number 44, to show that vehicles could exit the site safely have not been shown on the application drawings. Accordingly, I am unable to conclude other than the proposal would have an adverse impact on the safe movement of cars, pedestrians and cyclists.
I conclude therefore in respect of the main issue that without the necessary consideration having been given to visibility for vehicles exiting the appeal site that the proposal would be likely to result an adverse impact on highway safety. As such the proposal would fail to accord with the objectives of Policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District local Plan ([name] 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, along with other things, highway safety.
Section 05
Other Matters
From my site visit I am aware that there are other boundary walls of a similar design to that proposed here, some pillars even being higher than those proposed. Accordingly, the visibility afforded at those cross overs may not meet current visibility requirements. However, they do not set a precedent for allowing a new wall here that would not comply with the necessary standards of safety.
Section 06
Conclusions
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the 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 1184No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 December 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3329371
- Application reference
- CA/23/00778
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Canterbury City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000106
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
- 12 September 2023
- Valid date
- 12 September 2023
- Start date
- 10 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 26 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
- 45443
- 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