Appeal 3339741
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
5 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 an existing boundary fence.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary matter
Since it is more succinct and accurate the description of the proposed development is taken from the Council’s decision letter rather than from the original application form.
Section 04
Main issue
The main issue is effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property, a detached dwelling, stands at the junction of [site address] and [address] within a maturing residential estate. The existing fence is erected at the back of the footway fronting [address], a quiet cul-de-sac. The timber fence is about 1.8m high topped by a trellis about 0.5m high. Judging from its appearance and condition, the fence has seen far better days, and I can therefore understand the appellant’s wish to replace it.
The proposed replacement fence would be comprised of a solid timber fence 2.3m high supported by concrete posts with a concrete base. The appellant says that the solidity is needed at a higher level to ensure privacy and security in her rear garden, given that its level is above that of the footway outside.
To my mind, such a high fence would have a stark and utilitarian appearance harming local visual amenities at the entrance to the cul-de-sac. However, I saw that fencing was not uncharacteristic of the area, and I therefore consider that a replacement on a like for like basis would not prove unreasonable. The trellis would at least provide the opportunity for plants to be trained to act as a screen in the interests of privacy. Greenery at trellis level would also reduce the harsh impact of a solid fence on its surroundings. However, it is not open to me to modify the scheme by the imposition of a condition.
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan directed to achieving good quality design appropriate to the site and its context.
All other matters raised in the representations have been taken into consideration, including the absence of local representations, but no other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the factors that led me to my conclusions.
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 2949No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3339741
- Application reference
- P23/V2665/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Vale of White Horse District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000180
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
- 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
- 28 February 2024
- Valid date
- 28 February 2024
- Start date
- 12 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 17 May 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
- 51299
- 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