Appeal 3324152
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
8 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
provision of a vehicular access to front of property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The London Borough of Bexley Local Plan 2023 has been adopted subsequent to the Council’s decision notice having been issued. The local planning authority has confirmed that Policies T16, H9 and ENV 39 of the Bexley Unitary Development Plan 2004 have been replaced by Policies DP23, SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan 2023. Both parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the relevance of the new Plan policies.
Section 04
[name]
The main issues raised in respect of this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: - a) Highway safety; and b) The character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Highway safety
The proposal is to create an off-street parking area at the front of the dwelling and to construct a driveway across the grass verge between the highway and the parking area. The drive would traverse an existing footpath that runs along the frontage of the properties adjacent to the verge. The plan that supports the proposal does not illustrate that vehicles would be able to turn within the parking area. As such, a vehicle leaving the site would be required to reverse across the pedestrian footpath and the full length of the driveway or alternatively undertake this manoeuvre in reverse.
[address] is a cul-de-sac. As such this would limit traffic movements to those of the residents of [address] and visitors thereto. Being a no through road may also limit pedestrian movements in the area. Nonetheless, the verge is open space that provides an opportunity for public enjoyment. Given both the existing footpath and length of the driveway the vehicle movements would create a safety risk to those using the footpath and grass verge. As such, there would be an increased risk of accidents to pedestrians and increased danger to road users. This would be so even if the drive is only used by the residents of the property even when taking safety precautions.
The proposal would create two off-street parking spaces that could reduce reliance on on-street parking by residents in the area. However, this on-street parking offset would be minimal and would not provide a clear justification in favour of the proposed development.
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policy T4 London Plan 2021 and Policy DP24 Bexley Local Plan 2023. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development proposals not to increase road danger.
Section 06
Character and appearance
The grass verge is a distinctive part of the street scene. It provides an attractive area of open green space that contributes to the pleasant appearance of the area. Introducing a driveway over this land would be out of character as there are no other drives that traverse the verge. It would also diminish the visual attractiveness of the verge by creating a hard surfaced driveway across it. Consequently, the driveway would be visually harmful to the appearance of this distinctive feature within the street scene.
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan 2023. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to achieve high quality design.
Section 07
[name]
The creation of the driveway could facilitate electric charging for the cars. Whilst this would provide a benefit in reducing vehicle CO2 emissions, this does not overcome the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area and my concerns in regard of highway safety.
Section 08
Conclusion
Having regard to the above finding, 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 309No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3324152
- Application reference
- 23/00062/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Bexley
- Planning authority code
- E09000004
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 June 2023
- Valid date
- 1 October 2023
- Start date
- 5 October 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 December 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
- 43859
- 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