Appeal 3364791
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
Installation of footway crossing.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I have taken the description of the development in the banner heading above from the council’s decision notice, avoiding superfluous wording, as this gives a more concise description of the development proposed.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon pedestrian and highway safety.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a semi-detached house on the corner of the B4129 Rotton Park Road, and Parkside, a small cul-de-sac with a gated access, and approximately 50m from the junction with the A4040 City Road. There was a steady flow of traffic at the time of my visit in the late afternoon before the main evening rush hour. Most houses close to the appeal site had paved front gardens which appeared to be used for off street parking, although not all had dropped kerbs and road access. There was also roadside parking with most cars parked partly on the pavement. There were no parking restrictions other than close to the junction with City Road.
The appeal property frontage is paved with metal gates across the boundary with the pavement. There is insufficient space for parking cars to turn to enter or leave in forward gear. Vehicles would therefore have to reverse into or out of the front of the property next to the entrance to Parkside, risking potential collision with vehicles entering or leaving Parkside and with pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road at the entrance to Parkside. Vehicles slowing down or waiting to use the crossover would also hinder the safe movement of traffic close to the junction with City Road.
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would conflict with Policies PG3, TP39 and TP44 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017), Policies DM2 and DM14 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021), Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seek to protect highway and pedestrian safety.
Section 06
[name]
I understand the appellant’s wish to park in front of the house for greater security but that does not outweigh the potential harm that I have identified.
I appreciate that there are dropped kerbs elsewhere along Rotton Park Road, including the example provided by the appellant close to the junction with City Road. However, none that I saw were adjacent to the only point at which pedestrians could cross a road entrance and as such were not directly comparable to the appeal proposal. In any case, I have come to my own view regarding the development rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 29 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3364791
- Application reference
- 2024/04655/PA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Birmingham City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000025
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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 28 April 2025
- Valid date
- 6 May 2025
- Start date
- 6 May 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 29 September 2025
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
- 77062
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21