Appeal 3355783
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 addition of wooden trellis/screening on top of the existing wall running along the front garden.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The development described above and shown on the application drawings has been carried out. This appeal therefore relates to a retrospective planning application.
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised on 12 December 2024. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, I have not sought submissions on the revised Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by taking this approach.
The information before me indicates that the [name] (Regulation 19) Local Plan (2023) (PLP) is at an advanced stage of adoption. I therefore attribute weight to the policies in the PLP referred to by the Council.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached 2 storey house that is set back from the street and has a long street frontage that is dominated by a substantial mature tree. It fronts onto a busy road and forms part of a group of houses of similar age, size and appearance. These properties feature low front boundary walls at the front with mature vegetation behind them. Many properties nearby in [site address] also feature front boundaries that are dominated by vegetation. This gives the street scene a notably verdant character, a matter to which I attach significant weight.
The appeal scheme comprises a timber slatted fence which has been erected above the front boundary wall and in front of the tree. This structure rises to above head height and occupies all the frontage apart from the access to the driveway. In this context, characterised by low walls and boundary vegetation, this structure is a wholly incongruous addition that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene.
I recognise that the appeal scheme would enhance levels of privacy within the appeal property and may have some security benefits. However, there is nothing before me to demonstrate that these aims cannot be secured by other means and therefore I attach limited weight to these largely private benefits. As each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits having regard to a site’s unique local context, I attribute limited weight to planning permissions granted for replacement front boundary fences in the wider area.
For the reasons set out above I conclude that due to its size, materials and appearance, the appeal scheme results in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. As such it fails to accord with Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2018) and PLP Policy 28 which require all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality and compatible with local character. There is also conflict with the aims of the Richmond and [address] Village Planning Guidance (2016) and the Council’s Residential Development Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2010), the latter of which states that tall solid front boundaries can result in a defensive and hostile street environment, which is generally not a characteristic of the Borough.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 February 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 January 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3355783
- Application reference
- DC/SJH/24/1148/HOT
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000027
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
- 19 November 2024
- Valid date
- 19 November 2024
- Start date
- 5 December 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 August 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 11 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
- 64401
- 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