Appeal 3348571
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
for fencing erected to replace hedging.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
Since the planning application, the subject of this appeal, was determined a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) has been published (12 December 2024). There has been no material change to National Planning Policy in respect of householder appeals and therefore I consider that it was not necessary to refer back to the parties.
At the time of my site visit, a 6ft high close boarded fence had been erected around the frontage of the appeal dwelling; including along the whole length of the boundary shared with 57 St. [address] and along the north eastern boundary up to the gateway into the appeal site’s driveway. The fencing appears to have been erected in accordance with the submitted plans and I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is located in a prominent position at the junction of St. [address] and [address]. The front gardens in the locality tend to be fairly open, but if boundary treatments are present, they tend to be low in stature. In comparison, the fencing, by reason of its height and impermeability, appears as a strident feature within the street scene rendering it as incongruent and visually intrusive.
I acknowledge that the fence replaced a hedge of a similar height, however the erection of the fence constitutes development that requires planning permission. [name] accept that the remaining hedge comprises conifers that are certainly not in the best of health; nonetheless it does not mean that a suitable replacement hedge could not be planted.
I do however note the issues that have been associated with the hedge, including littering, but that does not negate the visual harm that ensues from the erection of the fence. I did note fencing further up St. [address] of a similar height to that proposed, however, that appears to have been erected for quite considerable time and to be enclosing a side garden, rather than a front garden/driveway area. However, with regard to this and the other examples cited, ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits and I say this notwithstanding that no comments were received from other residents.
Therefore, I consider that by reason of its height and prominent position between the principal elevation and the public highway, that the proposed fence constitutes an unduly intrusive and harmful feature within the street scene that is contrary to Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (adopted 2016) which requires new development to be of a high quality design that respects the key characteristics of the area in which it is proposed, ensuring that the scale relates well to their context.
Section 06
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude 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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 January 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3348571
- Application reference
- 24/0175/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Devon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000040
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
- 22 July 2024
- Valid date
- 22 July 2024
- Start date
- 29 August 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 May 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 27 January 2025
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
- 63519
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21