Appeal 3305822
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
described as the formation of vehicular access and crossover (involving dropped kerb).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a dwelling which fronts onto [address]. To the front of the dwelling a small frontage exists which is laid to hardstanding. The Council confirm that [address] is a classified road also known as the B284.
While a snapshot in time, during my site visit I found this section of [address] to be well trafficked. Breaks in the traffic were occasional and visibility was limited by existing parked vehicles on the highway.
The frontage to [site address] would be constrained in size. The appeal is also not supported by compelling evidence to show how the frontage would meet parking standards particularly demonstrating that a family sized vehicle could enter or leave the site safely.
While other dwellings benefit from frontage crossovers, I have not been provided with evidence setting out how these were found to be acceptable. Additionally, some existing crossovers elsewhere may have historically not required planning permission.
However, each case must be considered on its own merits in the light of the specific circumstances and context of each case cumulatively at that point in time. Overall, I am not persuaded that the presence of vehicle crossovers elsewhere justifies the proposal before me.
I cannot therefore be satisfied that the appeal would not compromise highway safety either to pedestrians or other road users. The proposed development would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy DM 35 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Development Management Policies 2015, Policy CS16 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Core Strategy 2007, the [name] for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework. All of which, amongst other things, seek to ensure proposals would not be prejudicial to highway safety.
I have not been provided with details of Objective 3 of the Surrey Transport Plan 2022-2032 beyond its aims to provide well connected communities that encourage social mobility and ensure no-one is left behind. Given my findings above, I also conclude that the proposed development has not shown that it would provide a well connected community.
Section 05
Conclusion
As such, the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be 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 1630No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 23 January 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3305822
- Application reference
- 22/00357/FLH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000208
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
- 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
- 25 August 2022
- Valid date
- 25 August 2022
- Start date
- 2 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 23 January 2023
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
- 26902
- 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