Appeal 3333473
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
4 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
the erection of 1.92m high garden fence and gate to increase privacy of residential curtilage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Reasons
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
The property is within a mature residential area, with bungalows and houses set back from the road. I saw there are predominately hedgerows and low fences or walls along boundaries that front the highway. These boundary treatments are important in providing a leafy and open character to the area.
The development has been partly implemented. The fence along the [address] frontage does not respect this character due to its position and height. It is very visible in the area due to the corner position, leading to long views along [address] and [address]. The position, length and height of the fence encloses these views and reduces the sense of openness at an important corner site in the residential area.
Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 and Policy PSP1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan 2017 (PSPP) seek to ensure, amongst other matters, that all development is informed by and respects the character of a site and its context. Policy PSP38 of the PSPP further states that development in residential curtilages must respect boundary treatments and landscaping of the surrounding area. The fence does not satisfy these requirements, and so is contrary to the
Section 04
development plan.
I acknowledge the appellant's desire to improve privacy and security. However, I must balance this against other matters and, as noted, the Council's adopted development plan requires all development to respond to the character of the area, in the wider public interest. In my view the harm to the area, and consequential conflict with the Plan, outweighs the personal circumstances of the appellant. 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 97No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 February 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3333473
- Application reference
- P23/02384/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Gloucestershire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000025
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
- 3 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
- 20 November 2023
- Valid date
- 23 November 2023
- Start date
- 11 December 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 October 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 16 February 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
- 46729
- 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