Appeal 3320408
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
a drop kerb from A1065 [address] onto a driveway constructed on the front garden of [site address] Suffolk.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The appellant and Council refer to part of the development as a drop, or dropped, kerb. I consider this to be more accurately described as the formation of a vehicular access given that the dropped kerb in question forms part of the public highway and is outside the application site. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect of the proposed vehicular access on highway safety with particular regard to the proximity of a controlled pedestrian crossing.
Section 05
Reasons
The site addresses [address], the A1065. The proposed vehicular access would be located on the zig-zag markings on the approach to the pedestrian crossing.
Vehicles exiting the site and making a left turn would immediately reach the stop line for the pedestrian crossing. This would not leave the zig-zag area clear and could cause conflict with pedestrians using and waiting at the crossing to the detriment of highway safety.
I have considered the appellant’s submissions regarding other similar relationships between vehicular accesses and pedestrian crossings or junctions and indeed, a comparable access on the opposing side of [address]. However, I do not have any detail of the origins of these accesses including whether they were created before or after the road features. Nor do I have any information on the policy and guidance framework at the time of their formation. This proposal can only be determined in relation to current policy and guidance which makes it clear that highway safety must be maintained. In particular, zig-zag controlled areas must be kept clear. The existence of other existing substandard arrangements does not justify a further erosion of highway safety.
The development poses an unacceptable risk to highway safety and is therefore contrary to the requirements of policy DM2 of the West Suffolk Joint Development Management [name] (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above 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 20921No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 August 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3320408
- Application reference
- DC/22/1755/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- West Suffolk
- Planning authority code
- E07000245
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
- 14 April 2023
- Valid date
- 18 April 2023
- Start date
- 28 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 March 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 5 September 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
- 38125
- 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