Appeal 3326216
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
installation of a footway crossing.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The description of the proposed development is taken from the Council’s decision notice. The description of development on the application form, whilst less concise and including questions, states that the proposal is to “install a footway crossing/dropped kerb...”
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey end-terraced dwelling located along Hob Moor Road in a residential area.
The area is characterised by the presence of short terraces of similar two storey dwellings along either side of the road. Dwellings are set well back from the road behind a wide verge, a pavement and a small front garden area.
The wide grass verges to either side of the road contain largely mature street trees and together, the street trees, verges, gardens and occasional hedgerows combine to afford this relatively high-density urban area a notable sense of greenery and spaciousness.
During my site visit, I observed that some front gardens have been converted into parking areas and have direct access to the road via tarmac-surfaced crossings over the grass verge and dropped kerbs onto the road. I also noted the presence of parking areas in front of dwellings without the benefit of dropped kerbs or tarmac-surfaced crossings, where it appears that cars simply drive over the grass verge and kerb onto the road, regardless of damage to the verge.
The submitted plans show a mature tree – recognised as being in good health – located in the verge directly in front of and fairly central to the appeal property. Without removal of this healthy tree, a new vehicular access to the garden area in front of the dwelling would require a crossing over the verge to be off set to the side of/adjacent to the tree and to be located above its root protection area.
In support of the proposal, the appellant has submitted a tree survey. This observes that it might be possible to provide an access without harm to the tree. The tree survey contains a plan showing a proposed dropped kerb and a new crossover. However, on this plan, the proposed crossover is narrow and significantly offset to one side of the property. It appears to require vehicles to manoeuvre in an extremely small area within immediate proximity of the tree, just in order to access the crossover. 10.There is nothing further before me to demonstrate that this would provide an appropriate crossover with access and egress for vehicles between the road and the front garden of the appeal property without any detriment to a mature, healthy tree. 11.Consequently, there is no substantive information before me to demonstrate, in a precise manner, how an appropriate vehicular access would be achieved. The plans submitted alongside the application are vague and taking all of the information before me into consideration, I am unable to conclude that a new vehicular access can be provided without any detriment to the tree. 12.Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development runs a severe risk of resulting in damage to or even the loss of a mature tree which makes a positive contribution to the area’s attributes and the damage or loss of which would be to the significant detriment of local character. 13.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies PG3 and TP7 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and to Policy DM4 of the Development Management in [name] (Development Plan Document) (2021) which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 December 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 December 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3326216
- Application reference
- 2022/08425/PA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Birmingham City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000025
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
- 18 July 2023
- Valid date
- 5 October 2023
- Start date
- 10 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 13 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
- 43529
- 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