# 2 Westparkside, Goole (boundary fence)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer Ellie Nutman)
- **Authority:** East Riding of Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008497
- **Application reference:** 25/03187/PLF
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retention of a 1.52 m timber boundary fence on a corner plot (retrospective)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(1)
- **Development plan policies:** East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document ENV1
- **Main issues:** character and appearance
- **Tags:** tier-2, householder, design-refusal, retrospective, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement

## Summary
A retrospective timber fence on a prominent corner plot in Goole, dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The Framework's changes were noted without consulting the parties: "The substantive changes thereto do not materially affect the matters at appeal" (DL ¶4). The benefits were of very limited weight and "they would be incapable of outweighing the substantial weight I would attach to the harm I have found, which would be obvious and enduring and conflict with the design related decision-making policies of the Framework" (DL ¶11).

## What made the difference
The fence's height, length and solidity on a corner plot, in a street of low walls and hedges. The decision is plan-led (ENV1); no Framework policy is named and no S4 balance is run.

## Policy findings
- **DP3(1): conflict (substantial weight).** mapped: the letter cites only the design related decision-making policies of the Framework; tall, solid fence on a prominent corner in a street of low walls and hedges; substantial weight to the harm (DL 5-8, 11)

## Key facts
- Street scene of low brick walls and hedges; the fence replaced a substantial hedge on a prominent corner plot (DL 5, 9)
- Benefits (security, removal of dead trees) given very limited weight; less harmful means not ruled out (DL 9-11)
- Decision on the recommendation of an appeal planning officer (DL 2)
- Framework changes said not to materially affect the appeal; parties not consulted (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008497
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7d76db8e-9312-48e2-a441-5ca99ad1a9f5

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008497.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.