Planning appeal decision
Silver Bearch, Tysea Hill, Stapleford Abbotts, Romford, RM4 1JP
retain front wall to highways”. The application was submitted retrospectively, and the development was in place at the time of my site visit. I have considered the appeal on a retrospective basis and have omitted “retain” from the development description. 4. The Council describe the development as including gates, in addition to the front wall. This is not disputed by the appellant. In my
- Authority
- Epping Forest District Council
- Appeal type
- householder · Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- other · Not Applicable
- Inspector
- Dade E
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the gates on highway safety
What decided it
The low traffic and pedestrian movements in the area, combined with good visibility and the commonplace nature of short-term vehicle stops in residential areas, mean the gates would not have a harmful effect on highway safety.
Plan policies cited: saved policy ST4 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan Alterations 2006, policy T1 of the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan (submission version 2017)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®