Appeal 3373908
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
the erection of a 2 metre high brick boundary wall.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The wall and an accompanying sliding gate appear to be essentially complete, but the consequent retrospective nature of the appeal makes no difference to the consideration of the planning issues arising.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the 2m brick wall and sliding gate on the character and appearance of the local street scene.
Section 05
Reasons
The proposed wall and gate are intended to enhance the privacy and security of the appeal property, which is vulnerable to trespass and break in, being currently open to the street and a nearby bus stop that generates pedestrian activity. This desire and genuine need carry due planning weight and have raised no neighbour objections.
However, I consider that the 2m brick wall and the sliding gate across the long frontage of the appeal property present an overbearing, solid appearance which is not repeated elsewhere along this part of [address]. This is contrary to the prevailing development pattern and substantially harmful to the character and appearance of the local street scene.
On my visit, I noticed a similarly prominent, tall timber fence fronting a property near the northeast corner of the adjacent [address] junction with [address]. However, I consider that this creates no acceptable precedent and judge the wall and gate disputed in this appeal on individual merit in the street context of [address].
For the reason explained, I find the wall and gate at [site address] to be in unacceptable conflict with Policy CS1 of the [name] and Development Management Policy DM1 which, consistent with the London Plan and national policy, require development to be of high-quality design to protect local character and distinctiveness.
In my judgement, this significant planning objection substantially outweighs the material need and desire of the Appellant for a greater level of enclosure to the appeal property.
I therefore 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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 November 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 November 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3373908
- Application reference
- PL/1913/25
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- 29 September 2025
- Valid date
- 28 September 2025
- Start date
- 3 October 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 September 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 26 November 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
- 80458
- 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