Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3294178

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

6 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 construction of a new vehicular access onto [address].

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a new vehicular access onto [address] at [site address] , Fowlmere [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/04874/HFUL, dated 7 November 2021, subject to the conditions identified in the attached Schedule to this decision.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the safety of other highway users.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The proposed development is the construction of a vehicular access to [name] from [address]. The appeal scheme would provide an alternative access to the appeal property rather than using an existing agricultural access.

    A previous application for a similar proposal was refused by the Council (Ref 21/0818/HFUL). The reason for refusing the previous scheme was because of a lack of information concerning suitable parking and turning provision to ensure vehicles entered and exited the property in forward gear. This varies from the reason for refusal for the proposed development whereby the need for another access has been questioned by the Council. However, although the need has been questioned, the appeal has been determined based upon the planning circumstances of the proposed development.

    Within the front garden of the property there is an extensive surfaced area. As demonstrated by the appellant’s evidence, this area would be capable of accommodating the required space to both park vehicles and enable them to turn around to enter or exit the property in forward gear.

    The property forms part of a group of buildings which are sited either side of [address]. There are already vehicular accesses to these buildings from the road, including via Moor Lane which has a junction with [address] on the opposite side of the carriageway from the property. Some of these accesses are adjacent to one another but this can be expected in circumstances where buildings are sited close together.

    The available records do not indicate that the movements associated with the accesses is the source of the single recorded accident. Further, the number of buildings and associated traffic movement is not such that there would be a high frequency of vehicular movements occurring at the same time from each of the accesses. An additional access within this group of buildings would not materially change this situation.

    The appeal scheme would create another access to [address] but it would not lead to an increase in the overall number of movements generated by the existing group of buildings. Instead, the existing movements associated with the host property would be displaced from the existing agricultural access to the proposed access.

    The speed limit along this part of [address] is 30mph. By reason of the change from the national speed limit being immediately to the west of the property, during the site visit it appeared that vehicles travelled in excess of 30mph as they slowed down or accelerated. However, it was also observed that vehicles could enter and exit the accesses associated with the neighbouring buildings in forward gear without representing a danger to highway safety. The speed of traffic along the road was not observed to be a significant impediment to these movements occurring.

    Although part of the hedge fronting [address] would need to be removed to enable the appeal scheme to be constructed, drivers exiting the proposed access would have appropriate visibility splays in both directions to be seen by other drivers exiting the property. Equally, the drivers of vehicles travelling along the road would see a vehicle exiting the proposed access.

    For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the safety of other highway users and, as such, it would not conflict with general access and parking requirements of Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. Further, it is concluded that the appeal scheme would provide a safe and suitable access to the property and would not give rise to a significant impact on highway safety which would conflict with paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

  4. Section 05

    Conditions

    The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate the conditions have been amended for reason of precision.

    For reasons of highway safety, conditions are necessary to ensure that the appeal scheme is constructed in accordance with the submitted drawings and in a manner which prevents surface water run-off and loose material encroaching onto the road. There is a lack of precision about what the Cambridgeshire County Council construction specification comprises and whether it is of direct relevance to planning or is another approval which may be necessary for the Highway Authority. For this reason, a condition referring to such a specification is not considered necessary. To maintain the character and appearance of the road frontage, a condition is necessary to secure replacement planting.

    Accordingly, and for the reasons given, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed.

  5. Section 06

    Schedule of 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 the following approved plans: IG01 and IG03.

    The development hereby permitted shall be constructed so that its falls and levels are such that no surface water from the parking and manoeuvring area discharges to the carriageway of the adopted highway. The falls and levels shall be retained thereafter.

    When measured from the edge of the carriageway of the public highway, for the first 5 metres the surface of the proposed development hereby permitted shall be constructed using a bound material and this surface shall be retained thereafter.

    Prior to the removal of any trees of hedges fronting [address], details of replacement soft landscape works and its management shall be submitted for approval in writing to the local planning authority. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is brought into use or in accordance with an agreed implementation programme. The landscaping shall be managed in accordance with an approved scheme of management.

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 1351No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    25 June 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    18 May 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3294178
Application reference
21/04874/HFUL
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Planning authority code
E07000012

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
1
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Yes
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
3 March 2022
Valid date
3 March 2022
Start date
17 March 2022
Planning authority decision date
21 December 2021
Appeal decision date
25 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
16894
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