Appeal 3357755
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
4 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
retrospective consent for erection of boundary fence adjacent to highway over 1 metre in height.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of boundary fence adjacent to the highway over 1metre in height in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 60077/001 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: (i) within three months of the date of this Decision the panels facing [address] and [address] shall be treated with a colour stain in accordance with details first submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority; (ii) in the first planting season following the date of this Decision climbing plants shall be planted against the two fence panels facing [address] in accordance with details first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the date of this Decision die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the street scene of [address] and [address].
Section 04
Reasons
I saw on my visit that the street scene at junction of [address] / [address] is mixed in character with some areas open plan and others enclosed with hedges. I have compared the existing situation with Google images and the appellant’s photograph of the site before the erection of the fence and consider that the principle of the enclosure of the relatively small area is acceptable. The recent relocation of the entrance door to the front and the presence of the large bay window in the side wall also supports the case for some additional privacy to this part of the property curtilage.
However, the erection of the wooden fence panels in its present form is overtly utilitarian and ‘harsh’ in public views and out of character with the more verdant surroundings. On the other hand, enclosure through planting would take a considerable time to be effective and would not provide security for the rear garden.
On balance I consider that the enclosure could be made acceptable by the outside of the fence being stained with a darker wood colour and the introduction of climbing plants against the front two fence panels. This ‘softer’ appearance would ensure that the development would not have an unacceptably harmful effect in conflict on the character and appearance of the street scene of [address] and [address].
As such, it would no longer conflict with Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] 2014; Policy HE2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan [name] 2006, and the Council’s Residential Extensions & Householder Development SPD.
I have imposed conditions to require the implementation of these measures and on this basis I allow the appeal.
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 204No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3357755
- Application reference
- 60077/001
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Hampshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000085
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
- 18 December 2024
- Valid date
- 18 December 2024
- Start date
- 8 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 13 May 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
- 69439
- 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