Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3337030

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

7 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

No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a dropped kerb to facilitate parking of car on the driveway - access to the driveway would be from the main highway at [site address] , Coulsdon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 23/03742/HSE, dated 4 October 2023, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal site comprises a semi-detached bungalow on [address]. The neighbourhood is predominantly residential in nature, with myriad other vehicular crossovers serving dwellings in the vicinity. At my site visit I saw that the front garden of the property has been cleared and laid with gravel, although it appears somewhat unfinished.

    The Council's Vehicular Crossover guidance recommends a minimum front garden turning area of 8 x 10m to enable turning on site. With the aid of a tape measure I was able to ascertain that the space available on the frontage of the site is broadly in accordance with these dimensions, and would therefore allow for access and egress in a forward gear. Taken together with the infrequency and short duration of crossing manoeuvres, the low speeds involved and the relatively wide footway to the front, I am satisfied that there would be no adverse impacts on local highway conditions.

    I note the Council's reference to the dismissed appeal at [address]. I observed that the front garden to this residence is significantly smaller than the appeal scheme before me, and as such is not comparable in relative terms. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

    I am satisfied that hedging could be planted along the frontage and to soften the appearance of the proposals. Other works undertaken to the boundaries and to the surface of the driveway would ensure that the scheme would harmonise with the streetscene.

    On this basis I am drawn to conclude that the scheme would not result in a detrimental impact upon highway safety. It would accord with Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DM29 and DM30 of The Croydon Local Plan (2018), which state that development should not increase road danger and ensure that safety is not compromised. It would be consistent with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

  4. Section 05

    Conditions

    I have considered the imposition of conditions in light of advice in Planning Policy Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans are listed for certainty. A condition relating to the retention of the parking and turning area in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the appeal is required to preserve highway and pedestrian safety.

    Fire safety requirements can be ensured such that necessary measures are incorporated in to the proposals. A boundary treatment and landscaping scheme would provide for appropriate planting and finishing the in the interests of ensuring a satisfactory appearance and adequate drainage.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusion

    Given my reasoning, I allow the appeal.

  6. Section 07

    Schedule of 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: 02-01 P1, 02-02 P1, proposed plan 2 frontage area calculation.

    The parking space and turning area as shown on the proposed plan 2 front area calculation drawing shall be kept available for those purposes to allow vehicles to park on site and turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] (submitted on 11.09.2023). _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme showing proposed boundary treatments and hard and soft landscaping. The scheme shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. _________________________________________________________________________________

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 212No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted site visit dates
    19 March 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3337030
Application reference
23/03742/HSE
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
London Borough of Croydon
Planning authority code
E09000008

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
16 January 2024
Valid date
16 January 2024
Start date
15 February 2024
Planning authority decision date
6 December 2023
Appeal decision date
9 April 2024

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
49255
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