Appeal 3362669
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
erection of 1.8m high fence to existing 1m boundary wall to side of property. 1.8m high double gate, to allow access/security to existing garage to side of property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow, which is situated on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. Due to its corner position, the appeal site is visually prominent in the streetscene. The surrounding area is mixed in terms of house types, but a distinctive characteristic in the vicinity of the appeal site is low boundary walls/fencing, with some of the boundaries supplemented by landscaping.
The appeal proposal is to erect solid timber fencing and a gate, as described in the heading above. It would be erected along the side boundary facing [address], with a short section facing [address].
The Council considers that the proposal would be an incongruous and overly prominent feature in the streetscene, because of its height, scale and materials. It cites a conflict with Policy EV/1 of the adopted Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004 and with Policy CS2 of the [name] 2015. These policies seek (amongst other things) to ensure a high standard of design for all new development and to respect and enhance the character of the area. The Councils Supplementary Planning Document – Design reinforces these requirements. In addition, paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF) contains similar provisions.
In reaching my decision, I noted during my site visit that there are other properties nearby that have solid timber fences that enclose gardens. I also accept the appellant’s need for privacy and security. However, I consider that the height and design of fencing proposed would appear at odds and out of character with the predominant form and style of boundary treatment in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property. Consequently, I share the Council’s view that the proposal would conflict with the provisions of both the Development Plan and the NPPF, as referred to above.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed.
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 203No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3362669
- Application reference
- P/24/1831/2
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Charnwood Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000130
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 March 2025
- Valid date
- 27 March 2025
- Start date
- 28 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 5 June 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
- 70633
- 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