Appeal 3273382
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
described as ‘Drop kerb, to enable us to park on the drive which will be created, by demolishing the front wall. Have spoken to highways, who have done an inspection an indicated this is possible with a joint crossing with number
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised in July, after the lodging of this appeal. However, as its policies that are most relevant to this appeal have not materially changed, no parties will have been prejudiced by my having regard to the latest version in reaching my decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
To the front of 16 [site address] is a garden enclosed by a wall, beyond which is the pavement, a grass verge, and [site address] itself, which carries the B3413 on an approximate east-west axis. The carriageway adjacent to the site is lined by a parking bay, from which the main flow of westbound traffic is separated by chevron markings bordered by broken white lines. This area should not be entered unless it is safe and necessary to do so.
The proposed hardstanding, due to its size, would not allow for onsite turning, meaning that vehicles would have to either enter or exit the site in a reverse gear. The access would be located alongside the west end of the parking bay. Intervisibility between vehicles seeking to exit or enter the site and other road users would be significantly hampered by vehicles within the parking bay.
Whilst the chevron marked area separates the site from the westbound route, I observed that it was common for vehicles to cut across this area in front of No 16 when accessing Crownhill Village, and to do so at a fair speed around the 30mph speed limit. Given these circumstances, the proposed access would give rise to an unacceptable effect on highway safety.
The appellant considers the proposal safer than parking within the parking bay. However, in my view such a manoeuvre takes place within clear sight of approaching vehicles, unlike the proposed arrangement. Moreover, whilst reversing into the site may be a safer option than reversing out of it, I have no means to guarantee that users of the site would continuously opt to take the comparatively safer option. In any event, the parking bay would remain available to other residents, and therefore the existing situation would endure.
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. In this regard, it would conflict with Policies DEV1, DEV20 and DEV29 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 (adopted 2019) and the Framework.
Section 06
Conclusion
The effect of the proposal on highway safety brings it into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no other considerations which outweigh this conflict.
Consequently, for the reasons outlined above, and taking all other matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should 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 255No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 August 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 July 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3273382
- Application reference
- 21/00237/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Plymouth City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000026
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
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- 23 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
- 19 April 2021
- Valid date
- 19 April 2021
- Start date
- 23 June 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 5 August 2021
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
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 1451
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21