Ashfield District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Ashfield?
Learn which access, visibility and parking facts inspectors examined in the selected Ashfield examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 24
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 6 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Ashfield LPA (53.092306, −1.259169). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Ashfield District Council appeal findings
Ashfield access, school visibility and parking evidence
One dismissed appeal in the matched local set is not among the selected examples, so its reasoning is not shown here.
Counted against appeals
Unsafe access and pedestrian conflict
Vehicles could not leave safely
The Inspector found that the access affected the highway and pedestrian walkway, creating an unacceptable risk of conflict between users.
Footway clearance was specified
The decision says parking space widths should leave room for a wheelie bin or bicycle, and warns against parallel parking directly behind a footway.
Helped or needed
Allowed highway safety conclusion
No highway harm found
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not harm highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Can vehicles enter and leave without endangering people on the footway?
- Does the design preserve clear space beside parked vehicles?
- Would a fence reduce visibility near a school entrance?
The allowed extract gives only a conclusion, not the facts that led the Inspector to it. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
14 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
[address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) The effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area; (ii) whether the site would be a suitable location for the development proposed with regard to accessibility to public transport, and; iii) the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In summary, I do not find that the proposal would be harmful to highway safety. The proposal would not conflict with saved policy ST1 c) of the Local Plan, which requires that development should not adversely affect highway safety or the capacity of the transport system. In addition, I do not find that there would be a conflict with the Framework, which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
30 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons already set out, I conclude 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 pedestrian to cause harm to highway safety due to visibility and pedestrian safety. In combination, these factors would lead to an unacceptable risk of conflict between highway users.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 1
16 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for a single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) highway safety with specific regard to parking.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
There is ample on-street parking capacity locally. [address] is a wide road with a footpath. The parking of a vehicle on the road would not therefore restrict the free flow of traffic or pedestrian movements. Furthermore, the appeal site benefits from a garage that could also be used for parking. I am therefore comfortable that the provision for parking within and without the appeal site would be acceptable. As such, there would be no harm to highway safety as a result of the proposal. It would therefore comply with Policy ST1 of the LP which is concerned with development not adversely affecting highway safety amongst other things.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
11 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a drop kerb and the installation of an electric car charging point.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed construction of a drop kerb and parking space on highway safety along [address].
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Saved Policy ST1 of the LP indicates that development will be permitted where it will not adversely affect highway safety. The Nottinghamshire Highways Design Guide 2021 (HDG) indicates that off-street parking space widths should consider the space requirements of the user and ensure clearance space for a wheelie bin or bicycle to pass a vehicle. Moreover, parallel parking immediately at the back of a footway is unlikely to be acceptable due to the potential conflict with pedestrians.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
12 June 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Fence installed made of treated feather edged wood around external residential boundary. Front porch with front canopy running to width of front elevation of the property. Front dropped kerb permit already granted. Front tarmac driveway to be installed sometime soon’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • highway safety in regards to visibility when entering/egressing from [address].
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude then that given the proximity to a school entrance and the high level of on-street parking during school starting and finishing times, the proposed fence would present a significant danger to the highway safety of drivers, pedestrians and other road users. It is therefore contrary to development plan policies ST1 and HG7 in the LP which seek to ensure that proposals do not adversely affect highway safety.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3