Appeal 3283180
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
7 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 installation of a dropped kerb to create a new vehicle cross over with hardstanding to the frontage to facilitate on-site parking.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately reflects the appeal proposal than that used on the planning application form.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect on highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The proposals would involve the creation of a vehicular crossover on a classified road, to allow parking to the front of the appellant’s dwelling. The proposed dropped kerb would be constructed within an existing parking bay, which provides off-street parking for the area.
Visibility from vehicles exiting the appellant’s front garden onto this busy road would be severely limited by any vehicles which are parked in the existing parking bay, particularly when leaving the site in a reverse motion. As such, the proposal would constitute a hazard to other drivers and would therefore fail to safeguard highway safety.
[name] recognise that the provision of two parking spaces within the appellant’s garden would result in an overall net gain of one parking space from the current parking bay arrangement, this benefit does not outweigh the harm that I have identified to highway safety.
In conclusion, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety. The proposal if therefore contrary to Policy CP10 of the Three Rivers District Council, Local Development Framework, [name] (2011) which seeks to ensure proposed developments safeguard highway safety.
Section 06
Other Matters
I acknowledge that the dropped kerb would allow the appellant to charge an electric vehicle within his garden and the associated sustainability benefits this would bring. However, this would not outweigh the significant harm to highway safety I have identified.
I note that there are special medical circumstances associated with the proposal and have carefully considered all information submitted regarding this matter. Refusal of the scheme would engage Human Rights matters. Having regard to Article 8 and Article 1 of the first Protocol, there would be interference with the occupier’s rights in respect of private and family life and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions respectively. However, there is a legitimate aim in protecting the highway safety of the area and the scheme falls short of acceptability in this respect. The harm would be longstanding. Consequently, these personal circumstances do not outweigh the significant harm that I have described. Such a conclusion is necessary and proportionate in this case.
Section 07
Conclusion
I have found the proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no considerations which outweigh this conflict. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. The proposal would not unacceptably violate the household’s rights under Articles 1 and 8. The protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering of their rights.
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 301No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 December 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3283180
- Application reference
- 21/1125/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Three Rivers District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000102
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
- 17 September 2021
- Valid date
- 17 September 2021
- Start date
- 9 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 30 December 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
- 8303
- 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