Appeal 3293930
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
ground floor rear dining/ living extension and front garage and porch extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on highway safety.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a 2 storey detached dwelling within a group of 4 dwellings that share a private access driveway set back from [address]. To the front of the dwelling there is a car parking space in front of a garage door and an area in front of a ground floor window is largely given over to gravel stones. The appellant has indicated that it is currently possible to park 3 cars in front of the dwelling. However, at the time of my site visit there was only one car. The scheme comprises a ground floor rear extension and a front garage and porch extension.
The Council raises no objection to the rear extension. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree.
The front extension would reduce the length of the space available to parking at the front of the property. Despite evidence submitted by the appellant I am of the view, based on my observations on site, that post development it would be difficult to park comfortably in front of the property without impinging onto the shared driveway given the shortened space that would be available. This would make access to the neighbouring property and manoeuvring more difficult causing a risk to highway safety.
The proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety and as such would conflict with the part of Policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Local Plan which requires new development to ensure a satisfactory means of access and provision for parking and manoeuvring.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons identified, I conclude that the appeal is 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 3546No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 June 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3293930
- Application reference
- NC/21/00525/DPA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Northamptonshire
- Planning authority code
- Not recorded
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
- 22 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
- 28 February 2022
- Valid date
- 28 February 2022
- Start date
- 16 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 16 June 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
- 16500
- 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