Appeal 3362781
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a contemporary property located within a village which has a rural setting in which boundary treatments vary and include walls, fencing and hedgerows/landscaping. The appeal site fronts onto a narrow road with the proposed boundary extending along the width of the plot.
The proposed wall would comprise a white coloured brickwork with powder coated grey metal panels without gaps, the gates would also comprise metal panels. The boundary would be of modern design to match the appeal property notwithstanding this the features of the boundary would be out of keeping with the setting of the appeal site. Despite the varying boundary treatments in the area, the appeal proposal fails to have regard to the local context and would introduce a stark urbanising form of development into the countryside.
The proposed boundary would be an incongruous feature impinging on the openness of the rural area. Whilst the appellant proposes to soften to a degree the appearance of the boundary by setting back the boundary and including roadside landscaping, the introduction of this urbanising development is in stark contrast to the countryside nature of the area.
I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision: APP/B2002/D/25/3362781
The proposed development would conflict with Policies 5 and 22 of the Planning for Growth, Local Plan 2013 to 2032 (2018) which amongst other things seeks to support the delivery of high-quality design.
There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 May 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 May 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3362781
- Application reference
- DM/0799/24/FULA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North East Lincolnshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000012
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
- Unknown
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 March 2025
- Valid date
- 26 March 2025
- Start date
- 1 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 20 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
- 69735
- 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