Appeal 3351694
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
6 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
vehicular crossing and tarmac driveway.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The description of development in the header above is taken from the Decision Notice of the Council as it describe the nature of the development in a more concise manner than the application form. I am satisfied that neither party is compromised by the use of this description.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is one of three terraced properties, set back from the highway, all with an amenity area to the front of the properties. The proposal would see the front area of the appeal property opened up to allow for the parking of a vehicle. The section of shared wall between the properties would be removed to facilitate access and a dropped kerb installed.
The is inadequate space at the appeal site to allow a vehicle to turn in order to leave and enter in forward gear. Vehicles entering or leaving the parking area in reverse would be at risk of, and have the potential to cause collisions onto [address], which appears to be a well-used highway. It would also prejudice the safety of pedestrians due to limitations in visibility as well as the slowing down and turning movements of vehicles causing hindrance to pedestrians and traffic.
The appellant states that their vehicle is of a size that could be parked and not overhang the highway, but that may well relate to that type of vehicle and may not still be the case if another vehicle used it.
The appellant has stated that a number of properties have carried out the same works, but I have no evidence to demonstrate whether planning permission has been acquired. Regardless of this, each proposal should be determined on its own merits.
For the reasons already set out, I conclude that overall that a safe vehicle access to the appeal site could not be achieved as its use would encroach onto and affect the highway and pedestrian walkway due to the inability to leave the access safely and has the potential to cause harm to highway safety due to visibility and pedestrian safety issues. In combination, these factors would lead to an unacceptable risk of conflict between highway users.
Therefore, I find conflict with policy CLP22 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan (2020) which, amongst other matters, expect development proposals not to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. I also find conflict with Paragraph 114 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that safe and suitable access should be achieved for all users.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 221No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 November 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3351694
- Application reference
- CHE/24/00293/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Chesterfield Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000034
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
- 25 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 11 September 2024
- Valid date
- 11 September 2024
- Start date
- 7 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 28 November 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
- 60806
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21