Appeal 3275440
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 a four storey building to contain one commercial unit (A2) on ground floor and four self contained flats (1 x studio flat, 1 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom) with associated refuse storage, cycle storage and amenity space”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is whether or not the condition is necessary and reasonable having regard to parking conditions in the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal proposal, which appears to have been implemented, and be substantially complete, is located in an area without a current [name] (CPZ). Despite that, it was clear from my site visit, from the evidence of the Council and third-parties, that the area immediately around the site is subject to parking stress. On street parking is clearly in high demand, and is further limited by parking and waiting restrictions on [address] itself, as well as the number of dropped kerbs and accesses along [address], [address] and [address].
I note the submission of a [name] (TS) which included a car-parking occupancy survey. However, that survey was carried out in 2018. At that time the TS showed a very close relationship between the predicted number of cars arising from the appeal development and the spaces available in the surrounding streets. Given the number of years that have passed, I cannot be certain that the conclusions of the TS are still applicable.
I note comments around public transport accessibility in the area and local levels of car ownership. However, I am concerned at the differences between the car ownership figures for Redbridge as a whole against the more immediate area and am not convinced by the suggestion that the more favourable figure is the most appropriate and reliable.
Taking all of that together, I do not therefore find that the originally submitted TS is compelling evidence that the proposal would not cause additional, unacceptable parking stress in the area.
I have had regard to the earlier appeal decision on this site which the appellant has provided 1. Having read that decision as a whole, I do not find that it offers support for the appeal before me. To my mind, the Inspector in that decision was setting out their concerns that the unilateral undertaking could not necessarily ensure that the development remain car-free in the future, particularly given the evidence before them as to the likelihood of a future CPZ in the area. I have not seen the evidence before the Inspector in that appeal but note that they were concerned over the effect of the proposal on parking stress in the area.
However, on the basis of the evidence before me, that the Council intends to implement a CPZ in the area, that there is existing parking stress, and that the development could add to that parking stress, I find that the condition remains reasonable, necessary, precise, enforceable, related to the development permitted and related to planning. The condition would also remain consistent with the relevant development plan policies which seek to manage areas of parking stress.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I therefore 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 224No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275440
- Application reference
- 2151/20
- 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
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appeal type reason
- 4. Grant planning permission for the development subject to conditions to which you object
- Appeal reason
- Appeal Against Conditions
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Other
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0.03 hectares
- Floor space
- 138 m²
- Number of residences
- 4
- 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
- 20 May 2021
- Valid date
- 20 May 2021
- Start date
- 15 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 October 2020
- Appeal decision date
- 18 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
- 12505
- 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