Appeal 3374097
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 fence to front and side boundaries.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached dwelling, which is situated within a narrow residential street, close to the town centre. A characteristic of [address] is the relatively open front gardens areas, which are a positive feature in the streetscene.
The proposal is to retain an existing fence that has been erected along the front and side boundaries of the property. It is constructed of solid brown composite panels with black posts. The Council states that the fencing is 1.8m high, but the applicant disputes this, stating that it is 1.6m. Notwithstanding the difference between the two parties, I have determined this appeal based on my observations at the site visit.
Policy JP-P1 of the adopted Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (JDP) requires (amongst other things) development to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials used. In addition, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document SPD4 – A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations (SPD), states that “where there is a distinctive type of frontage in a residential area, including an open frontage, it will be desirable to keep and reinforce this type of boundary treatment in new development.” I consider that the above policy and guidance accords with the provisions of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF).
In reaching my decision, I have fully considered the appellant’s arguments over the need for the fencing to provide security at the property. I have no substantive evidence of issues at the property and, in any event, I observed at my site visit that the entrance to the driveway at the front of the property is open, with no barriers. Whilst there are other examples of fencing in the local area and other appeals have been allowed, I have determined this appeal on its own merits having regard to the character and appearance of [address]. I have also considered the fact that neighbours have not objected to the proposal.
Notwithstanding the case for the appellant, the fence appears as a discordant feature, because of its height, solid construction and its position at the edge of the pavement. In my opinion, it is at odds with the character and appearance of the streetscene and, as a result, it conflicts with the provisions of the Development Plan and with the Council’s SPD, as referred to above.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given 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
- 16 December 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 November 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3374097
- Application reference
- 116492/HHA/25
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000009
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
- 2 October 2025
- Valid date
- 2 October 2025
- Start date
- 13 October 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 16 December 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
- 81642
- 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