Appeal 3327592
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
4 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 change the garage to [name].
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the development on pedestrian and highway safety in [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property shares a driveway entrance. The garage conversion includes the insertion of a front door and windows. This leaves available parking in front of the former garage in a tandem arrangement. Current parking standards require two parking spaces for this property.
Current parking standards for tandem parking seek 5.5m x 2.9m for each space. Where there is a structure, such as the existing side wall of the host dwelling and side fence, then these dimensions should be 3.4m x 6.0m to provide circulatory space between each parked vehicle.
The parking area does not meet the above standards to allow for the parking of two vehicles. From my observations, due to the size of the area available for parking, this is insufficient for the parking of two medium size cars, without creating a lack of circulation space. This may lead to obstruction of the shared driveway and possible obstruction of the footway or highway. There is a strong possibility that vehicles will be displaced onto the road or footpath.
The traffic calming measures in this part of [address], including the narrow road and roundabout fronting the site, do not make it conducive for safe on street parking. In these circumstances, I conclude that the development has an adverse effect on pedestrian and highway safety in [address]. Thus, the development is contrary to Policies DM21,and DM22 in the Colchester Borough Local Plan Section 2 (2022) where they seek to ensure adequate parking and the safe passage of all highway users. In addition, the development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks to ensure highway safety.
For the above reasons and having taken into consideration all matters raised, including those from interested parties, I dismiss the appeal.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3327592
- Application reference
- 231287
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Colchester Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000071
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
- 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
- 10 August 2023
- Valid date
- 17 August 2023
- Start date
- 28 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 30 October 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
- 41081
- 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