Appeal 3373574
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
4 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
formation of vehicular access and creation of area of hardstanding.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for formation of vehicular access and creation of area of hardstanding at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 251795HH, and [name]-0263-02 V1 and H-0263-05 V1, dated 30 April 2025, subject to the condition that the development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
Section 03
Main Issue
The sole main issue is the effect the proposed vehicular access would have on road safety.
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is very busy, and the situation in the vicinity of No 31 is complicated by the entrance to the filling station opposite and the nearby [address] junction. This is compounded by the presence of a signalised pedestrian crossing, with its zig-zag warning markings extending across the frontage of the appeal property as well as that of its immediate neighbour, No 33, on the corner plot at [address].
No 33, already enjoys a vehicle access and crossover, as does No 29, just beyond the zig-zag markings. It is understandable that the Appellant seeks to improve the access to his property in a similar manner to that of his neighbours, citing personal benefit and his human right to the enjoyment of his family home. However, road safety is the paramount consideration in this fresh appraisal of the proposal, even where there seems to be a degree of inconsistency between the present situation and the refusal of the application. It is primarily on the basis of road safety that I consider this appeal.
There are a great many frontage vehicle accesses along this length of [address], including some which conflict with pedestrian crossings and their kerbside zig-zag warning lines. On a clear section of road with no private entrances, it would be crucial to avoid any footway crossovers conflicting with traffic approaching or departing from a pedestrian crossing, which it is the purpose of the zig-zag markings to prevent.
However, in the particularly busy and complex highway environment that already exists at the front of the appeal property, driver concentration on [address] is most likely to be focussed on the range of potential hazards, including the potential need to stop at the pedestrian crossing in particular.
It appears to me that one more vehicle access and crossover at No 31, in addition to that at No 33, across the zig-zag markings, and that at No 29 only just beyond them, would not significantly increase the overall level of risk to road safety in the vicinity of the appeal site.
Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would not unacceptably undermine the aims of the relevant development plan policy T4 of the London Plan to protect road safety.
I therefore conclude that this appeal should be allowed, subject only to the standard time limit for commencement and compliance with the submitted plans.
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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 November 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 November 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3373574
- Application reference
- 251795HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Ealing
- Planning authority code
- E09000009
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
- 23 September 2025
- Valid date
- 23 September 2025
- Start date
- 1 October 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 26 November 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
- 80456
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21