Appeal 3332260
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
to replace fence on top of wall at front of property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the appeal proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hunstanton Conservation Area (CA).
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is an end-of terrace dwelling located on [address]. It has a relatively large garden at the side of the property, bounded by a relatively low stone wall with brick detailing. Consequently, the garden is open to public view.
The site is within the CA and a distinctive characteristic of the locality is the boundary walls, which are generally similar in materials and height to the wall at the appeal site. In my opinion, these make a positive contribution to the CA.
The proposal is to erect a trellis fence behind the wall, which would provide an element of privacy and security for the appellant. I have given weight to these benefits in my decision. I also note that a fence previously existed along the frontage. However, as that is no longer present, it has little influence in my
Section 05
assessment.
Policy DM15 of the Council’s Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan 2016 requires new development to protect and enhance the amenity of the wider environment, including its heritage value. In addition, Policies CS05 and CS08 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2011 seek to enhance the character of Hunstanton and protect and enhance the historic environment. These policies are also reflected in Policies J1 and K2 of the Hunstanton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020-2036 and in Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.
I note that the Council has advised that security and privacy could be provided by installing railings or planting, but the appellant has dismissed these due to the costs and timescales involved.
According to the officer’s report, the proposed fence would project above the existing wall by 0.6m. Whilst this projection would be relatively low, I consider that it would appear as an alien and discordant feature that would be visually harmful and at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of this part of the CA. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the policies and provisions of the Development Plan, as referred to above.
With regard to paragraph 208 of The Framework, I consider that the proposal would amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. Accordingly, the harm should be weighed against any public benefits arising from the proposal. In this case, whilst increased privacy and security are benefits to the appellant, they are not public benefits and, therefore, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal 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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3332260
- Application reference
- 23/01224/F
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000146
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
- 405 m²
- 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
- 18 October 2023
- Valid date
- 18 January 2024
- Start date
- 5 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 19 June 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
- 52724
- 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