Appeal 3319191
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
‘Formation of a dropped kerb for vehicular access’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ‘Formation of a dropped kerb for vehicular access’ at 05 June 2023 in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/03685/HOU, dated 04 November 2022, subject to the following conditions; (i) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. (ii) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Block Plan, Site Location Plan, W- 01 P3 [name], and W-02 P1 Proposed Tree Protection and Site Set Up. (i) Notwithstanding condition (ii) above, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Protection Method Statement dated 04 November 2022, including its appendices. For the avoidance of doubt, the tree protection and methodology described shall accord with BS 3998: Tree work: Recommendations (or an equivalent [name] if replaced). (ii) Pedestrian/ vehicular inter-visibility splays of 2.8m x 3.3 m should be provided in each direction where the access meets the back edge of the footway and shall be permanently retained free from any obstruction to visibility higher than 1 metre above ground level.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached house fronting A238 [address] West. In the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, the area is predominantly suburban residential, however, [address] West does lead into [address] towards a hospital, train station and supermarkets. As such, [address] West is a busy suburban road.
The street is intermittently sylvan and verdant due to the mature front garden planting and hedged boundary treatments of the dwellings which line the road, as well as varied lengths and depths of verge with street trees. These verges and hedges are frequently broken up by road accesses and private vehicular accesses. Opposite the appeal site, the dwellings have a much shallower set-back from the road and the main contribution to the more enclosed and verdant character comes from the particularly deep verge and trees which line the road outside of the appeal site. Whilst the area is attractive, it comprises of varied built form.
At present, the appeal site has two openings in its boundary wall; one with a formally laid out hardstanding access and another which, due to the presence of tyre tracks on the verge, has been used as an informal access onto the road by ‘bumping down’ the kerb. The proposal seeks to formalise the informal road access with hardstanding and a dropped kerb.
The existing parking arrangement on site accommodates a number of vehicles along the wide frontage of the site, however, there appears to be little manoeuvring room for vehicles to turn inside the site and egress in forward gear. Given the busy nature of the road and the pedestrian pavement, highway safety concerns arise from the existing arrangement.
The loss of the trees within the street scene would erode the attractive and verdant nature of the area. However, the area is not a designated Conservation Area, and the character of the area must be balanced highway safety. In any case, the trees are outside of the Appellant’s control and the appeal proposal seeks to retain them.
There would be the loss of a narrow slip of verge, however, this would not have a noticeable impact on the character of the vicinity, given the prevalence of vehicle accesses and broken verges.
The issue therefore turns on whether the trees can be adequately protected during construction and that the construction method used does not cause undue root damage or compaction. As such, tree protection and mitigation methods have been provided by way of a Tree Protection Method Statement. This issue could therefore be overcome by way of a condition requiring the proposal to be carried out in accordance with that statement and, for the avoidance of doubt, in accordance with the [name].
For these reasons, the appeal scheme complies with policies CS8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of [site address] Local Development Framework Core Strategy (CS), adopted 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant guidance. These policies seek, amongst other things, high-quality development which protects the primarily suburban character of the Borough, recognises local character and which incorporates principles of safe design.
Section 05
Conditions
The Council has proposed a total of four conditions; that the development begin within three years of the date of permission, that the development be constructed in accordance with the approved plans, that prior to commencement an arboricultural method statement is provided and that visibility splays are ensured. As a Tree Protection and [name] has already been provided, the wording of the relevant condition will reflect that. I consider these conditions necessary and reasonable for the reasons given above, and compliant with the relevant legal and policy tests.
Section 06
Conclusions
For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal accords with the relevant policies of the development plan and no material considerations indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the
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 254No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 31 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 June 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319191
- Application reference
- 22/03685/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
- Planning authority code
- E09000021
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 0 m²
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 24 March 2023
- Valid date
- 24 March 2023
- Start date
- 10 May 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 31 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
- 36407
- 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