London Borough of Barking and Dagenham appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Barking and Dagenham?
Learn how selected appeals treated parking, bus-shelter space and local highway-safety effects.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 151
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 2
- of 5 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: Barking and Dagenham LPA (51.543977, 0.133197). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham appeal findings
Dropped kerbs, parking and bus-shelter space
Among the selected examples, 84517 also covers character and appearance and gives only a combined conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Bus-shelter space and lasting highway harm
Drop kerb beside bus shelter
Its close proximity to the existing bus shelter and associated waiting area was found to cause unacceptable highway-safety harm.
Highway harm had substantial weight
The Inspector concluded the highway harm would be significant, enduring and potentially affect life. The scheme’s benefits were limited and mostly temporary.
Helped or needed
No significant highway or parking impact
No significant local effect shown
The Inspector found nothing to suggest a significant local effect on highway safety or parking provision.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a parking shortfall or claimed overspill parking?
- Is a dropped kerb close to a bus shelter or waiting area?
- What evidence addresses highway safety and local parking effects?
The selected extracts for 85105 and 17349 find no highway-safety harm, so they do not explain their final decisions. 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
22 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the subdivision of commercial units to form four self-contained commercial units within ground floor rear outbuildings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area; the effect on the vitality and viability of the neighbourhood centre; and the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of local heritage assets. There is also nothing to suggest that there would be a significant impact on highway safety or parking provisions locally.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of the dwelling (C3) to a 5no. bed, 5no. person HMO (C4), conversion of the garage including the construction of a single storey front extension, and installation of one window to the ground floor side elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed change of use would be acceptable, with regard to its effect on the supply of family housing and its accessibility to public transport; • the effect of the proposed front extension on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to parking provision.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, based on the evidence before me, the scheme would provide appropriate parking provision. I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the proposal would result in overspill parking onto the highway and therefore be harmful to highway safety. The scheme is in accordance with [name] 1 and DMT 2 of the BDLP and Policy T1, T6 and T6.1 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that developments provide appropriate levels of car parking.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
17 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “construction of 1 x 1 bed 1 person 2-storey dwelling with associated external amenity area, parking space, bicycle storage and waste storage”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) highway safety with specific regard to on and off-street parking.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this case, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and highway safety. These would be significant and enduring, and in the case of highway safety matters be potentially impactive to life. They would conflict with the relevant parts of the Framework, sections 9, 12 and 16 particularly. I therefore afford them substantial weight. The benefits of the scheme, including the addition of one unit and associated economic activity during construction and occupation, would be limited in scale and largely temporary. While the shortfall in housing supply is acknowledged and attracts moderate weight, the contribution of one dwelling would make only a minimal difference to addressing that deficit.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
9 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
2 options for [name] to the Front of [site address] Property with drop kerb, Option 1 is the preferred option.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on highway safety by reason of its close proximity to the existing bus shelter and impact on the associated waiting area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies BR10 of the Local Development Framework Borough Wide Development Plan Document 2011, Policies D8, T1, T3 and T4 of The London Plan 2021. Policy BR10 seeks to protect existing transport networks and encourage a modal shift away from private car use. Together, Policies D8, T1, T3 and T4 seek to ensure - amongst other matters - a safe and accessible public realm and the connectivity and accessibility of existing and future public transport. It would also be contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure new developments do not impact unacceptably on highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
5 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single storey garage side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] am satisfied that the proposed development would not harm highway safety. This would be compliant with Policy D4 of the London Plan, Policy CP3 of the [name] and Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Development Plan, all of which seek to ensure (amongst other things) development to ensure that developments take into account safety of all users, and ensure that places are legible and easy to move through and connect with one another.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3