Appeal 3375944
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
6 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 retrospective application for a new fence.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure and Main Issue
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issue in regard to which is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site is within a residential area. Properties around the site and leading further into [address] are generally set back from the roadside with mature and leafy front boundaries that lend a high quality verdant feel to the street scene. The property sits on a curve in the road and is visible when entering [address]. The fencing panels are close boarded and combined with their height, create a substantial block along the entire frontage of the property that unacceptably erodes the areas more natural green qualities. The dark colour of the fencing creates a more industrial appearance that is a stark and unacceptable contrast to the surrounding hedges and trees.
The development therefore causes harm to the character and appearance of the area and is contrary to Policies ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan 2005 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 which are concerned with development having regard to the context of its surroundings amongst other things.
[name] appreciate the scheme provides extra privacy, security and helps with keeping dogs, I am not convinced it is the sole way of doing such on the strength of what I have seen. Moreover, I have not been provided with any evidence for the need for increased security at the property. I would consequently afford these matters limited weight.
Given the height of the fencing, any hedge planting would not immediately provide a sufficient cover to satisfactorily alleviate the harm that I have identified, because it would take some considerable time to properly establish. Furthermore, there is limited space between the back edge of the highway and the fence which casts doubt over whether there would be room to facilitate the height and depth of the planting that is proposed or required. A lack of objection from the highways authority or neighbouring occupiers is a neutral matter and would not be able to weigh against the harm I have found.
Section 05
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 06
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is 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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 February 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 February 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3375944
- Application reference
- ZG2024/0773/HPA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Yorkshire Council
- Planning authority code
- Not recorded
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Other minor 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
- 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
- 18 November 2025
- Valid date
- 27 November 2025
- Start date
- 2 December 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 16 February 2026
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
- 84431
- 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