Appeal 3302073
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
formation of vehicular access.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
A planning application to form a vehicular access at the appeal property was refused in 2002.1
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling situated along [address], a busy thoroughfare.
The appeal property is separated from the road by a pavement. The property itself is fronted by a narrow area of hard-surfacing and there is no notable boundary feature between this hard-surfacing and the pavement.
During my site visit, I noted that a number of dwellings within the same terrace as the appeal property have similar small, narrow areas of hard-surfacing immediately between front facades and the pavement.
Also during my site visit, I observed cars parked on such areas of hard-surfacing, parallel to the street and immediately adjacent to dwellings. The majority of dwellings in the terrace, which runs for some considerable length, 1 Reference: 0459/02. do not have a dropped kerb to provide for access onto and egress from, [address].
As a consequence of the above, cars that park immediately in front of dwellings must manoeuvre across the pavement in order to park in a constricted area and to enter or exit [address].
During my site visit, I noted that the pavement along [address] in this area is well-used by pedestrians. I also observed there to be a bus stop close to and along the same side of the road as the appeal property. Further, the appeal property is close to a school and there is a related road sign, warning of the presence of young pedestrians, sited very nearby to Number 489. 10.The proposed development would serve to support a form of parking that would require vehicles to manoeuvre across a well-used pavement to reach a very narrow and tight area of hard-standing. I find that such manoeuvres would necessarily result in a hazard to pedestrians, close to both a bus stop and a school. Drivers would be seeking to enter or leave a busy thoroughfare and would be focused on traffic movements. I consider that this would create a significant risk to the safety of the pavement for use by pedestrians. 11.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated by the nearby presence of the bus stop and the sporadic existence of car parking along the street, which already requires cars to manoeuvre across the pavement into tight spaces and which serves as a further distraction and potential hazard for road-users in a busy pedestrian area. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would result in harm to highway safety contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; and to Local Plan2 Policies LP23 and LP26, which together amongst other things, seek to ensure safe access.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302073
- Application reference
- 0962/22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Planning authority code
- E09000026
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Other minor 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
- 29 June 2022
- Valid date
- 20 September 2022
- Start date
- 7 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 30 December 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
- 25886
- 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