Appeal 3319153
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
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
described as ‘Extend and improve the driveway.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a brick built semi-detached house that is set back from [address]. A part of its front garden has been hard surfaced and was being used for the parking of motor vehicles at the time of my site visit. This specific part of [address] opens up visually when compared to the more urban area that lies generally southwest of the appeal site beyond the Aldersley stadium entrance. It is the combination of green space and the predominantly open plan front gardens that contribute to the spacious verdant suburban character of the immediate area.
The proposal would result in the creation of a driveway across the green space/footpath. [name] note that there are a number of existing vehicular/pedestrian crossings on this part/side of [address], the green space is still largely intact and consequently performs a valuable streetscape function as originally planned. Therefore, based on the evidence before me and my on-site observations I conclude that the introduction of an additional driveway/vehicular crossing would incrementally erode the green space and thus materially harm the character and appearance of the area.
Therefore, it follows that the proposal would conflict with Policies ENV3 and CSP4 of the Black Country Core Strategy. These seek amongst other things to ensure that development is of a high-quality design that contributes to the character and appearance of an area.
Section 05
Other Matters
I have carefully considered the representations of the appellant and I accept that there are no garages or vehicular access to the rear of their property. In doing so I note that they consider that the provision of a vehicular crossing would regularise the existing situation of their vehicles mounting the kerb and crossing the green space to access their hardstanding. Moreover, I have considered their proposition that the proposal could theoretically improve pedestrian and vehicular safety along with potentially reducing parking stress/damage to the green space. However, in their specific case these matters can be simply resolved by vehicles1 not mounting the kerb or driving across a pedestrian footpath/green space. As such, I am not persuaded by the appellant’s suggested benefits, and even if I was, they would not outweigh the harm that I have identified from the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons and having carefully considered all other matters raised. I 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 794No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319153
- Application reference
- 22/00759/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Wolverhampton City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000031
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 23 March 2023
- Valid date
- 23 March 2023
- Start date
- 24 May 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 17 July 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
- 35717
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21