Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 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

the formation of a vehicular access including a dropped kerb.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

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

  4. 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.

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty.

  6. 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