Appeal 3342962
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
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
the formation of a vehicular access including a dropped kerb.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of a vehicular access including a dropped kerb at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/0000432/HHA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following 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: Location Plan and Proposed Block Plan.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The Council altered the description of the development. I have adopted the Council’s description of the development as this is more accurate.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property, No [site address] (No 102) is a mid terraced dwelling with a modestly sized front garden accessed from Brownshill Green Road, a classified road. The garden has been hard surfaced and is set back from the road behind a wide landscaped grass verge which includes a street tree, lamp post and a bus stop not in use. Immediately beyond the terrace of dwellings is a vehicular access to car parking spaces associated with the parade of shops located at the nearby roundabout junction with [address]. Nearby properties feature private vehicular accesses and off street parking spaces. At the time of my site visit there was a reasonable level of traffic and a regular demand for on street parking on this part of Brownshill Green Road.
The Council’s principal concern relates to the reversing manoeuvres which would occur when accessing or leaving the appeal site. I acknowledge that reversing manoeuvres into a classified road would not be ideal however I am mindful that the number of such movements associated with one residential terraced dwelling would be likely to be limited. The on street parking and the proximity of the roundabout means that it is highly likely that vehicle speeds on this part of Brownshill Green Road would be relatively low. These factors together with the access/egress arrangements to the convenience store, are such that drivers are likely to be relatively alert to the potential for vehicles to slow down, stop and/or undertake turning movements. Drivers of vehicles are therefore likely to take extra care in this location
In terms of visibility, the tree within the verge and on street parking would restrict some visibility from the north when leaving the site. Vehicles entering or leaving No 102 are however likely to do so at low speeds and would be readily visible to pedestrians and cyclists using Brownshill Green Road due largely to the width of the footway. Further, Brownshill Green Road is relatively straight and wide at this point and notwithstanding the presence of parked vehicles, a good level of visibility for both cars and pedestrians can be obtained in this direction. Nor, given the width of the footpath, would the tree unduly obscure all views of vehicles travelling along in this direction. To the south double yellow lines at the approach to the vehicular access to the convenience store and roundabout preventing parking would provide adequate visibility both to and from the appeal site of oncoming vehicular traffic from this direction. Further, there are a number of other examples of parking in front gardens with accesses directly onto Brownshill Green Road, including one sited within the same terrace of dwellings as No 102. Even though these accesses may not have received consent or are historical there is no evidence before me that these accesses have been prejudicial to highway safety.
The introduction of a dropped kerb to facilitate off street parking would be for private use only and at the expense of available on street parking. This would be partially replaced by the creation of the off street space, albeit that would be for the private use of the occupiers of No 102. I acknowledge the Council’s concern in terms of the loss of parking capacity in this area. Given the location of the convenience store it is highly likely that on street parking will occur on Brownshill Green Road. However, during my site visit I noted that whilst there was a steady demand for on street parking, such parking was for a limited time only primarily by users of the convenience store and spaces regularly became available. Further, there was other available on street parking in the area together with existing off street parking spaces. Overall, on the information before me I am not persuaded that this area is experiencing considerable on-street parking pressure. Hence, I am not convinced that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect upon users of the highway as a result of the loss of publicly available on street parking space.
For the above reasons, I find that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on highway safety. Of the policies put to me by the Council I find Policy AC2 of the Coventry Local Plan 2016 (adopted 2017) to be the most relevant. which amongst other things, requires development proposals not to have a negative effect on the safety of the highway network.
Section 06
Conditions
In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I hereby allow the appeal as set out in the formal decision above.
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 1974No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 July 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 June 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3342962
- Application reference
- PL/2024/0000432/HHA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Coventry City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000026
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
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 22 April 2024
- Valid date
- 23 April 2024
- Start date
- 22 May 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 5 July 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
- 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
- 53587
- 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