Appeal 3368875
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
a low-level front and one side fence located at the front boundary of the property, built at 900mm high from wooden posts and open slats.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the already erected fence on the character and appearance of [site address] , Freshwater.
Section 04
Reasons
The Council’s concern is that although the driveway remains open, the 900mm high fence at the front of the property in [site address] , erected with a return along the shared boundary with the neighbouring Trefirs, has led to a harmful enclosure of the front garden and is visually intrusive and incongruous within the open and spacious street scene.
The Officer’s Report explains that the necessity of a permission for the fence arises from a condition imposed on the 1963 permission for 23 dwellings in [site address] , and from my visit I can understand why this was originally considered important in terms of maintaining a verdant and informal character as part of the development.
The Council concedes that [site address] now includes several other properties that have their frontages enclosed by boundary fencing but argues that these are newer houses on a short section of the lane. Given that the permissions for these buildings could have had a restrictive condition imposed to keep the frontages open and on the assumption that the fences are not in breach of such a condition, I can understand why the appellant considers that the refusal for [site address] is unfair and inconsistent. I also accept that with its height of a metre or so, the fence is less prominent than some others.
Be that as it may, I agree with the Council’s view that ‘hard’ front boundary treatments are harmful to the character and appearance of [site address] . And by comparing the fence in this appeal with the open plan frontage of [site address] shown in Google imagery before the fence was erected, I am also satisfied that harm has in fact been caused to the character and appearance of [site address] in this case. Furthermore, if I allow this appeal, it would be difficult for the Council, in all fairness, to refuse similar applications from other residents of [site address] .
The appellant refers to other residents erecting fences and planting bushes to prevent car parking encroachment on their land. However, I do not regard landscaping in the form of bushes and hedges as having the same harmful impact on the area as fences, even allowing that planting can result in a degree of enclosure. In the initial period it is normally feasible to use the occasional boulder to protect the trees, hedges, or bushes from being damaged by cars.
For the above reasons I consider, on balance, that the development is unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of [site address] . This conflicts with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan Core Strategy 2012 and with Section 12: ‘[name] of Government policy the National Planning Policy Framework, revised December 2024.
The appeal therefore fails.
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
- 20 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3368875
- Application reference
- 25/00393/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Isle of Wight Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000046
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
- 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
- 8 July 2025
- Valid date
- 8 July 2025
- Start date
- 16 July 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 20 October 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
- 78228
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21