Appeal 3275347
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
the formation of vehicular access and driveway.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the proposal would impede pedestrians, having regard to the size of the proposed parking space.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a mid-terraced property, with a short front garden, no longer walled off from the relatively wide, well-used pavement to the front, with a well-used bus stop and pedestrian crossing nearby.
I acknowledge the width of the pavement to the front of the site, but the local development plan supports sustainable transport, including walking and cycling, and I do not consider it appropriate to reduce the width of the footway available for the use of non-car means of transport for the storage of a private motor vehicle.
I also note that there is frontage parking at neighbouring properties, but do not agree that they offer support for the proposal, as at the time of my visit, and indeed, in the supporting photograph submitted with the appeal, cars in those spaces were overhanging the footway.
The appellant suggests that the proposal would be used by a small car, and indeed, a small car parked diagonally. However, neither of these matters can be ensured or controlled in the long term through the planning process. Allied with that, I also note the concern of the [name] that diagonal parking could impede pedestrian access to the house itself.
I therefore find that the proposal would impede pedestrians and would be contrary to policies LP22(e), LP23 and LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030, which seek, amongst other things, to promote sustainable transport, including the active encouragement of walking by proving attractive, safe, convenient and accessible routes, as well as the provision of suitable parking and the overall achievement of good design.
Section 05
Other Matters
I note the suggestion that the proposal could benefit a disabled person, however, without further details of how, I am unable to give this suggestion any weight in my decision.
The appellant has suggested a legal agreement to ensure that any vehicle parked on the driveway would not overhang the footway, with penalties within it for failure to comply. However, as no such agreement is before me I am unable to give it any weight in my decision.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore 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 224No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275347
- Application reference
- 0356/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Planning authority code
- E09000026
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
- 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
- 19 May 2021
- Valid date
- 19 May 2021
- Start date
- 15 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 28 March 2022
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
- 12984
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21