Appeal 3334549
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
the erection of a new timber fence along the grass verge.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is located within an established residential area characterised by mostly two storey dwellings with areas of open space and footpaths connecting to other parts of the [site address] development. This results in an open and spacious character to this part of the estate. The appeal site itself is an area of land that has the boundary fence and side elevation wall of [site address] [site address] to one side and a footpath and open front garden areas to the other. This area is laid to grass, appears well maintained and appears to have previously been open to the adjoining footpath. During my site visit a temporary fence had been erected around the site. The site integrates well with its surroundings and positively contributes to the areas sense of openness which is experienced when walking along the footpath.
The area of land is to be subsumed into the garden of No [site address] and bound by a 2-metre-high fence. The proposed boundary treatment would enclose an area of land that positively contributes to the openness of the area. Additionally, the enclosure would be brought closer to the footpath detracting from the openness users experience when walking through the area. The proposal would therefore erode the sense of openness harming the surrounding area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/D/23/3334549
Consequently, I find the proposal would be in conflict with Policy NE14 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan (2006), Policy 57 of the [name] (2015) and Policy 7 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2018). Together these seek to ensure that developments enhance local distinctiveness and respect local character. The proposed development would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework that seeks good design sympathetic to the local character.
Section 05
Other Matters
[name] observed other examples of fencing nearby, and the appellant has drawn my attention to other sites, these relate to fencing backing on to wider areas of green space, pavements or positioned next to a highway and has not resulted in such a narrow area of footpath as the proposal. As such, I do not consider that they provide any meaningful support in favour of the proposal. In any case, each development proposal should be considered on its own merits, with regard to its own individual context.
I appreciate the appellant’s desire to provide a private, safe, and secure place for anyone using the garden. However, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development is the only way to address the appellant’s concerns.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above 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 568No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 21 August 2024Differs from the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 July 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3334549
- Application reference
- PL/2023/06299
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wiltshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000054
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
- 5 December 2023
- Valid date
- 5 December 2023
- Start date
- 7 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 22 August 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
- 56003
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21