Appeal 3320383
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
a dropped front kerb.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a dropped front kerb at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/01276, dated 11 September 2022, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:1250 scale Location Plan; 1850- 01A; 1850-02A; 1850-03A.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effects of the loss of part of the hedge on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal relates to this detached house which is set within a residential area. The area contains a variety of styles of houses and all appear to arise from fairly recent construction.
The appeal property is set behind a hedge which forms the front boundary of this house and its neighbours at No [address] and No [address]. Access to Nos 35 and 37 is from a shared point in front of No 35, which leads to off-street car parking areas within each property. There is a variety of front boundary treatments within the area including brick walls, hedges, fences and some with open frontages, including the garage-court style layout opposite. There are also numerous vehicle accesses which punctuate the frontages, many of them shared.
The proposal would involve the removal of 4.3m width of the frontage hedge. This would still leave a section of hedge in front of No 35, a section in front of the appeal site and that which exists in front of No [address]. The area is not one where vehicle accesses are uncommon; numerous exist at present. The proposal would result in the removal of a relatively small section of the existing hedge, again it is not uncommon to see such features punctuated by access points and the character of the area does not rely on continuous, unbroken boundaries.
Within the context that I have described, I consider that the loss of this section of the hedge would have no material effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be entirely consistent with the locality and the proposal would not conflict with Saved Policy BAS BE12(i) of the Basildon District Local Plan.
The appellant sets out her concerns in relation to the safe and convenient use of the existing access point. [name] have noted her concerns, I find that the proposal is acceptable on its own merits and such matters would only further support the proposal.
In relation to conditions, the Council has suggested that the standard time limit condition is included along with a condition which requires implementation in accordance with the approved plans. Both conditions are necessary to ensure timely implementation and implementation in accordance with the planning permission.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out, the appeal is allowed.
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 188No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 4 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3320383
- Application reference
- 22/01276/FULL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Basildon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000066
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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 14 April 2023
- Valid date
- 14 April 2023
- Start date
- 28 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 17 August 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
- No
- 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
- 37329
- 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