Appeal 3284648
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
a dropped kerb vehicular access.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a dropped kerb vehicle access at [site address] . in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/3209/21/ dated 30 July 2021 subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing 572 PL-01.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development upon highway safety.
Section 04
Reasons
The application is for the installation of a dropped kerb relating to a parking area fronting [site address] which, from my observations, appears to be established, incidental to the occupation of the dwelling and currently in regular use by vehicles who access it by mounting the kerb. The lawfulness of that use is not before me to consider but I note that neither party has indicated any dispute on that point.
The refusal reason refers to a single policy, DM42 [name] of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). However what is before me relates to extant residential curtilage and does not require a decision that would either permit or refuse permission for parking, I am consequently unable to find any conflict with Policy DM42 which seeks to manage parking provision for new development.
As it is likely that the use of the parking area will continue I now turn to the matter of the pavement crossover. It has not been suggested that the current use has created any hazard to highway safety nor, if some hazard were alleged, has it been explained how it would be mitigated by refusing a crossover in the location identified. Pavement crossovers will tend to smooth the entry and egress of vehicles and assist in the flow of traffic along this busy road.
I therefore conclude that the provision of the pavement crossover will not harm highway safety and, therefore, having regard to all matters raised, that the appeal should succeed subject to the usual time limit condition and a plans condition in the interests of certainty.
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 2574No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 January 2022 (page 1), 18 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3284648
- Application reference
- P/3209/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 11 October 2021
- Valid date
- 11 October 2021
- Start date
- 4 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 4 February 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
- 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
- 10039
- 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