Appeal 3360350
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
erection of a 2 metre tall fence along a portion of the eastern boundary adjacent to the highway and footpath.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a 2 metre tall fence along a portion of eastern boundary adjacent to the highway and footpath at number [site address] , Simonstone, Lancashire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/0801, and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
[name]
The fence was erected prior to the application to the Council. The eastern part of the boundary fence requires permission as it is located at the rear of the highway footway.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the streetscene and surrounding area.
Section 05
Reasons
Number [site address] is a detached dwelling located within a residential area. The houses are laid out in estate style with dwellings set back from the network of roads. Boundary treatment varies throughout the residential area, including low walls, hedges, and timber fences of differing styles. In general, the open character of house frontages has remained, but there are significant lengths of high timber boundary fences next to the footway at [address] and [address].
The fence that has been erected at the appeal site has good quality, regular pale coloured timber panels which step down in accordance with the slope of [address]. The fence may be seen in conjunction with sections of pale and dark timber panelled fencing, with concrete posts, at the neighbouring dwelling of number [address]. There is also pale brown timber fencing, with hedging above, at [address], terminating the view down [address] from the appeal site.
The fencing at the appeal site has reduced the openness of the estate at the junction of [address] and [address], although an area of grass has remained at the front of the plot. However, the boundary fence does not appear out of character because of the existing fencing in the immediate vicinity.
In view of the context set by other high timber boundary fencing at this part of the estate I consider that the fence is appropriate in scale and design and causes no significant harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area.
The development therefore does not conflict with policy DMG1 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy which seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to existing land uses in terms of its size, intensity, and nature as well as scale, massing, style, features, and materials.
As the development has been completed, and the decision at paragraph 1 above refers to the submitted plans, I consider that there is no need to apply any specific
Section 06
Conclusion
The development complies with the development plan as a whole and 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 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 April 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3360350
- Application reference
- 3/2024/0801
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Ribble Valley Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000124
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
- 9 February 2025
- Valid date
- 2 March 2025
- Start date
- 21 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 24 April 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
- 68471
- 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