None

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical Issues Heatmap

Character & Appearance
Policy Weight

Inspector’s Reasoning

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2025 by Juliet Rogers BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000141 Proposal: boundary fencing and security bollards at 50 Hazelmere Road, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1PD Application Ref: 24/04382/FULL6 Decision – planning permission is granted. Preliminary Matters – I have determined this appeal retrospectively. Reasons Issue – the effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) 1. Whilst the predominant front boundary treatment in this part of the ASRC comprises low brick walls, there is little consistency in their design with a variety of pier types, capping details, brick patterns and the incorporation of railings evident in the street scene. Other front gardens nearby are bounded with rendered and painted walls or landscape features. 2. Aside from the tall close board fencing between 23 and 25 Hazelmere Road, the presence of wooden fencing in the street scene is principally limited to side boundaries. Nonetheless, the height, colour and horizontal slatted design of the boundary fence preserves the spacious character of the street scene and the wider ASRC. Furthermore, the visual connection between the properties and their surroundings, a key feature of the ASRC’s character, is maintained. 3. The development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 6233-24-PL001: Alterations to Front Driveway - Retrospective; and 6233-24-PL002: Alterations to Front Driveway - Pre-Existing Drawings. Reason: to provide certainty. Conclusion 4. The development complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision should be made otherwise. Juliet Rogers INSPECTOR
Expert Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.

Get Free Review How it works →