Ashford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Ashford?
Learn which local highway-safety evidence to compare with your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 63
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 7 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: Ashford LPA (51.125328, 0.81145). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Ashford Borough Council appeal findings
Ashford driveway, parking and pavement evidence
The selected examples have a more dismissed outcome mix than the matched local set. Appeal 443 is a multi-issue rural case at the edge of highway safety.
Counted against appeals
Where Ashford access proposals fell short
Pavement overhangs risked pedestrians
The Inspector found that vehicles overhanging the pavement, rather than reversing alone, would be detrimental to highway safety.
Off-street parking lacked evidence
Without evidence to the contrary, the Inspector found that the extension would not provide suitable off-street parking and would harm highway safety.
Sub-optimum visibility was not shown safe
The Highway Authority’s requirements had not been met, and the evidence did not persuade the Inspector that road conditions were sufficiently safe.
Helped or needed
Existing dropped kerb harm unproven
Access conflict harm was unproven
For a new driveway off an existing dropped kerb, the Inspector found insufficient evidence of adverse access conflict or highway-safety harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Could a vehicle overhang the pavement or obstruct pedestrians?
- Do your parking plans show suitable off-street space?
- Does your access evidence show safe visibility at the road?
Appeal 443 covers a rural mixed-use scheme and is only an edge-of-scope highway-safety example. 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
3 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
formation of a new driveway off existing dropped kerb access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to obstruction or conflict of the access and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to the obstruction or conflict of the access nor in terms of highway safety. Consequently, it complies with Policy SP6 of the Ashford Local Plan 2019 which supports high quality design, including through ease of movement and public safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
26 January 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as dropped kerb in front of house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I am sympathetic to the appellant’s concerns relating to on street parking issues. Nevertheless, I concluded in respect of the main issue that while another vehicle reversing out on to the road would not be necessarily detrimental to highway safety, vehicles overhanging to pavement would be. To allow the proposal would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policy TRA7 of the Ashford Local Plan ([name] 2019), the National Planning Policy Framework and the [name] and Design Guidance SPD 2010, as they relate to, along with other things, highway safety and the need to provide for pedestrians first.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
2 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two-storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and • the effect upon parking provision and highway safety;
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposal would not make suitable provision for off-streetcar parking, resulting in harm to highway safety. As such, I find conflict with Policy TRA3a of the ALP and the [name] (2010) which, amongst other matters, seek to avoid adverse impacts on the use of footways and highway safety.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
21 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for vehicle crossover, parking and single storey side extension to form garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the Highway Authority’s requirements are clear and have not been met by the development. I am not persuaded from the information before me that the road conditions are sufficiently safe for the proposed vehicular access to proceed with sub-optimum visibility. On this basis, the appeal proposal would result in unacceptable harm to highway safety contrary to Policy TRA7 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 115 of the Framework.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
9 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part retrospective change of use of land to a mixed use - equestrian use for rescue and training of horses/small animals with associated operational development comprising of 6-bed stable block, tack room, hay loft and stationing of a mobile home as on site management/security residential accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (a) whether there is adequate justification for a rural worker’s accommodation on site, (b) the effect of the proposal on the rural landscape character and appearance of the area, (c) the effect of the proposal on highway safety, (d) the impact of the proposal on neighbouring occupiers in relation to noise and disturbance and (e) the impact of the proposal on water quality and the Stodmarsh designated habitat site.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Permission 17/01332/AS includes a new access on to [site address] that would be shared by the appeal and adjacent sites. Such an access has been provided. It is not for me to determine if this access satisfies all requirements of the Highway Authority and the Stour Internal Drainage Board (IDB) regarding a culvert, but the access provides satisfactory visibility for vehicles entering and leaving the site. Paragraph 109 of the Framework states, “Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”. As two day events and other more ambitious activities referred to in the ‘Business Proposal’ do not form part of the appeal proposal, any vehicular activity would be limited in scale. Its impacts would not be severe or prejudicial to the interests of highway safety.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3