Appeal 3303136
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 vehicle crossover to front of property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety on [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed vehicular crossover would enable a vehicle to be parked in the current front garden. Due to the depth of that front garden, vehicles would either have to reverse into or reverse out of the parking space onto [address].
The appeal site is located directly opposite the vehicular and pedestrian accesses to [name] within a 20mph area. In addition, it is close to a traffic calming hump which has pedestrian crossing changes in pavement materials either side. Thus, it can be reasonably expected that this is used as a crossing to get to and from the school.
Due to the close proximity of the crossing point and the need to reverse either in or out of the parking space, I consider that pedestrian safety would be significantly adversely affected by the proposal. Even with the provision of pedestrian visibility splays, I consider the need to manoeuvre into and out of the parking space in this location, would be detrimental to both pedestrian and highway safety. Whilst some properties within the locality have off street parking, these are located further away from the school entrance.
In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised including the personal circumstances of the appellant. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on highway and pedestrian safety on [address]. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policies PMD2 and PMD9 in the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) 2015, where they seek to ensure highway safety. I consider these policies to be broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, especially where the Framework seeks to ensure highway safety.
I have been referred to guidance in the [name] and [name] (2017). This does not specifically refer to crossovers with regard to highway and pedestrian safety and thus I have attributed the guidance limited weight in my determination of this appeal.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3303136
- Application reference
- 22/00213/HHA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Thurrock Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000034
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
- 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
- 14 July 2022
- Valid date
- 14 July 2022
- Start date
- 23 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 10 October 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
- 21760
- 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