Appeal 6004518
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 1.83m fence to front garden.
Section 02
Preliminary matters
The description of development as set out on the application form covered matters beyond the actual works proposed. The above description is as set out on the decision notice, which is concise and accurate.
Section 03
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 04
Main issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The proposed fence would be sited on the boundary of the property fronting [address]. Houses along that road generally have landscaped frontages, where hedgerows and planting are well-maintained and suburban in character. This landscaped character to the wider area is, though, punctuated by wide driveways and hardstanding frontages to a number of properties. The streetscene to the south is open character. To the east side of the appeal site there is close-boarded fencing, which turns the corner from [address] to [site address] , which I am informed was recently permitted; new landscaping has been planted on the highways side of that fence.
The appeal site contains extensive laurel bushes on its two frontages. This is evidently somewhat out of control which consequently, as is characteristic of such species, leads to gaps and straggly appearance in its lower canopy. The appellant wishes to install a close-boarded fence on the [address] frontage to improve security, privacy and noise abatement. This would be directly on the boundary line, with laurel retained behind.
As noted above, the character of the wider area does see hard landscaping: the close-boarded fence to the east, and a number of properties with open boundaries with extensive hardstandings. However, the proposed arrangement for the fence at the appeal property would be harmful to the streetscene. Whilst the close-boarded fence to the east has been permitted and installed, that has planting in front which will mitigate its impact to some degree. However, in this appeal no such planting in front is proposed.
At the appeal stage the appellant said that planting could occur in front of the proposed fence. But that would be on land outside the appeal site, which is not shown to be under the appellant’s control. Hence, on the basis of the information presented to me, I cannot say that such planting would be possible.
Policy EN4 of the Mole Valey Local Plan (2024) requires all new development to be of high-quality design that makes a positive contribution to its local character. Policy AS-En3 of the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan (2016) requires all development to be visually integrated with their surroundings and designed with regard to the character of the surrounding area. For the reasons given I find that the proposed development would not satisfy these policies. The appeal is therefore 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 97No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 May 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 April 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004518
- Application reference
- MO/2025/02483
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000210
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 600 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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 February 2026
- Valid date
- 2 February 2026
- Start date
- 11 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 December 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 19 May 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 89024
- 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