Appeal 6010230
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
described as the installation of a ‘4.6m drop kerb’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon pedestrian and highway safety.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal relates to a modest, two-storey mid-terraced dwelling within a residential estate development of similar property types. The dwelling has a single-storey projecting porch across one half of its front elevation with a side facing entrance door; an arrangement which is mirrored at No 14 and repeated by matching pairs along the terrace. There is a central concrete path bisecting the shallow and open plan front garden leading in a straight line from the adjoining pavement to the front door, which is accessed via two steps. The proposal is to create a 4.6m wide pavement crossover to provide vehicular access across the plot’s frontage. Although not shown on the submitted plans, the appellant has stated that the proposal is to turn the garden into a drive by taking out all plants and existing steps and replacing them with a resin surface and smaller new steps to be arranged in a circle.
The crossover would facilitate access to frontage parking at No 16. There is no information before me to show how this would be laid out. Based upon the width of the proposed dropped kerb, a vehicle would be capable of accessing the entire frontage space and parking in an assortment of ways. According to an undisputed figure provided by the Council, the depth of the frontage between the porch and the back edge of the pavement would measure 4m. I observed for myself that this is insufficient to provide space for a vehicle to park perpendicular to the road without significantly overhanging the footway.
The depth of space to the side of the porch is limited by the steps leading to the dwelling’s front door. The appellant has suggested that these would be re-provided in a different format. However, there is nothing to show how this would be achieved whilst simultaneously providing an area large enough for a vehicle to park clear of the highway in accordance with the dimensions of 2.8m by 5.5m for a space in front of a vertical feature, as required by the Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance (2015).
With this in mind, there appears little potential for a vehicle to park on the site without obstruction and harm to the safe passage of pedestrians on the adjoining footpath. This would be detrimental to pedestrian and highway safety in conflict with part (b) of Policy DM 33 of the Wycombe District Local Plan – [name] 2019, which requires development to provide safe and convenient access to the local highway network for all modes.
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the appeal is 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 286No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 16 June 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6010230
- Application reference
- PL/26/01643/FA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Buckinghamshire Council
- Planning authority code
- Not recorded
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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 33 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 25 May 2026
- Valid date
- 25 May 2026
- Start date
- 27 May 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 April 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 24 June 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 90961
- 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