Appeal 3277465
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
4 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 an access.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on highway safety on [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is situated on [address], a [address]. At the time of my visit. whilst there were temporary road works outside the appeal property, this was a very busy road. It was clear that the volume of traffic was high and I see no reason to assume that this was unusual.
The proposal is for the formation of a vehicular access to a residential property. The Manual for Streets standard vehicular visibility splays cannot be met.
I sympathise with the appellant’s requirement for off street parking and can understand the difficulties faced with having to park elsewhere. However, I consider it essential that the safety of drivers and pedestrians on [address] and drivers entering and leaving the property is of paramount importance. It is my opinion it is essential that drivers entering or leaving the property have to be able to do so in a forward direction in order to ensure this safety so that they are able to see vehicles approaching on the road. Therefore, I do not feel it appropriate to relax the required sight line provision.
The proposal would lead to vehicles reversing with restricted visibility onto [address] and in very close proximity to the zebra crossing. There is a strong probability that this would lead to increased pedestrian and vehicular conflict, resulting in an unacceptable degree of hazard detrimental to the safety of both pedestrians and drivers.
In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised including examples of other vehicular accesses along [address]. The examples do not justify the addition of the proposed sub-standard access onto this busy highway. In addition, I do not consider the siting of traffic mirrors would overcome my concern, as they would be of minimal assistance to drivers.
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on highway safety on [address]. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks to ensure that development proposals do not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Since the Council made its decision, the Framework has been revised. Nevertheless, it continues to seek to ensure highway safety.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277465
- Application reference
- 21/00124/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Chelmsford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000070
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
- 21 June 2021
- Valid date
- 21 June 2021
- Start date
- 9 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 8 November 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
- 5715
- 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