Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. 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.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.

  4. 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.

  5. 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