Appeal 3354796
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
a front boundary brick wall.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a front boundary brick wall at [site address] , Havering, Hornchurch, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0980.24, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development to which this permission relates must be commenced not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan PL- 6216_11, Proposed Site Plan BR- 6216_13, [name] 6216_14, [address] [name] 6216_15.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is on a short length of road, which has a character that is visually distinct from the main part of The Sheilings. This is due to a sharp bend in the road followed by a change in house styles along the remainder of the street. This short stretch of road incorporates runs of tall close board fencing and brick and railing boundary walls. It is also viewed partly within the context of the corner properties on [address], due to the proximity with the road junction. Hence, while open aspects do feature further into The Sheilings, this is not the only feature of the road, and the presence of boundary treatments along its progression is notable.
The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling set back behind a hard-surfaced front driveway. At present it does not have a front boundary treatment but given the immediate context, my observations were that this was not intrinsically important to the overall qualities of the street scene at this point. The appearance and arrangement of the appeal property generally contributes towards the overall pleasant residential character of the area.
Whilst the site frontage is wide, the proposed boundary treatment incorporates good quality design features and materials that would break-up its massing, including brick piers, railings, and splayed entrances. The railings would also provide views towards the front of the dwelling, thereby retaining a degree of openness. Furthermore, the overall height reflects the prevailing character of the streetscape at this point. Hence the proposal would reinforce the prevailing pleasant residential character of the street scene and would not detract from the openness of the main part of The Sheilings. This would accord with the design principles within the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, adopted 2011.
It is highlighted that the neighbouring property, no 1 The Sheilings, has an open and pleasant character, in common with no’s 4 and 6 The Sheilings. However, the appeal property differs as it has the only frontage that aligns with the run of taller boundary features that I have already identified. Notwithstanding the Council’s concern that the boundary treatment directly opposite may have required planning permission, and that the corner properties on [address] should be discounted, they nevertheless form part of the context of the appeal site. On that basis, their presence is relevant to my consideration.
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed front boundary wall would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (adopted November 2021), which requires new development to respect local character and distinctiveness through high quality design.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.
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 5239No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 February 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 February 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3354796
- Application reference
- P0980.24
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Havering
- Planning authority code
- E09000016
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
- 0 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 31 October 2024
- Valid date
- 31 October 2024
- Start date
- 14 November 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 18 February 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
- No
- 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
- 64808
- 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