Appeal 3336864
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
a new boundary fence.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the new fence on the character and appearance of the street scenes of [site address] and [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling, ‘Shardon’, is one of two similar single storey dwellings in [site address] on either side of the junction with [address], the other being named as [name] on the [name] map submitted with the application.
The existing fence on the site is 7.5m from the kerbside of [address] and the appeal proposal would move it 4m closer, leaving a gap of 3.5m. However, I consider that the existing generous building line to the flank of the above-mentioned properties is read in the street scene as visually linking into the even greater distance between [site address] and their frontages.
The extent of the openness of this side of [site address] would have been unusual in the [address] but is even more so nowadays. And as such, this open character and its resultant greenery gives the appeal property and its surroundings a pleasingly distinctive character and appearance which in my view should be preserved.
The moving forward of the side boundary fence of Shardon as proposed in the application would also remove the balance that exists with [name]. And because its existing width was clearly considered necessary to complement the open frontage, the appeal proposal with its much smaller 3.[address] would inevitably appear as being somewhat incongruous. Appeal Decision Ref. APP/P2114/D/24/3336864
I have given careful consideration to the grounds of appeal. I recognise that the enclosure of the additional land would have benefits for the appellant, but it would have been clear at the time of moving into the property that this area of land was intended to be within the public realm rather than for the benefit of the occupiers, their ownership of the area notwithstanding.
As regards the photographs of other nearby properties and the space around them, I consider that I can give these only very limited weight in coming to my decision on the appeal. This is because, as I have explained, although the existing arrangement of a very generous ratio of public realm open space to enclosed private curtilage is unusual, it is this that gives this part of [site address] and [address] its distinctive character and appearance.
Accordingly, the enclosure of a substantial part of the open land as proposed would have an adverse effect and I consider that this would be in harmful conflict with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan Core Strategy 2012 and with Government policy in Section 12: ‘[name] and [name] of the National Planning Policy Framework (as revised December 2023).
For these reasons the appeal fails.
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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 April 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 March 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3336864
- Application reference
- 23/01577/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Isle of Wight Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000046
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
- 75 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
- 14 January 2024
- Valid date
- 23 January 2024
- Start date
- 12 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 4 April 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
- 48999
- 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