Appeal 3292071
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 sliding electric gate.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the safety of public highway users.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is a well-used through route, lined mainly by houses and bungalows with individual accesses and off-street frontage parking. No 92 is typical in this respect. A sliding electric gate has been installed close to the back of the footway. I understand that the gate is being kept open in the absence of a planning permission. It was open at the time of my site visit.
The gate is less than 4 metres from the carriageway, so that if it is closed then most vehicles wanting to enter the site would likely stop across the footway and partly in the carriageway, forcing pedestrians into the carriageway and making cyclists and drivers move out into the centre of the busy road. The location of the access opposite a bus stop would potentially make this situation worse, as traffic might try to squeeze through the gap when a bus is stopped there. The situation would amount to a minor hazard, causing a small but significant amount of danger to highway users.
The appellant suggests that this could be addressed by a condition or conditions controlling use of the gate. One of these could require use of a hands-free control device, but this would be difficult for the Council to enforce and would not deal with situations where other drivers might try to access the property for visits or deliveries. Another suggested condition would limit closure of the gate to a period from 22:00 hours to 07:00 hours overnight. This would however, leave a situation where danger would still be created each night, during hours of darkness. Therefore neither of these appears to be a satisfactory solution.
I have looked at this proposal on its own merits. I note that there are a few other similarly positioned gates on [address], but the vast majority of properties here do not have gates. I have not been provided with any detailed information regarding approval of other gates on this road.
I conclude that the proposal would prejudice the safety of public highway users. It therefore conflicts with the aims of paragraphs 110 and 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework, to provide safe and suitable access.
The appellant states that the reason for the gates is to provide overnight security and refers to numbers of vehicle crimes in the area. No police advice has been provided, however, and no specific evidence has been submitted showing that such crimes are a serious problem in the immediate vicinity. As above, most properties on the street do not have security gates. I find that security has not been shown to be an overriding problem here.
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 890No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3292071
- Application reference
- 21/02202/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
- Unknown
- 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
- 0 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 3 February 2022
- Valid date
- 3 February 2022
- Start date
- 16 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 26 April 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
- 14328
- 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