Blackpool Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Blackpool?
Learn which parking loss and driveway safety points inspectors found harmful or acceptable in the selected 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
- 7 of 42
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- 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: Blackpool LPA (53.817692, −3.035525). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Blackpool Borough Council appeal findings
Parking loss and driveway access in Blackpool
The selected examples do not include every dismissed appeal in the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Parking loss on Blackpool streets
Parking loss adds street pressure
The Inspector found that losing on-site spaces would add pressure to on-street parking, inhibit traffic and endanger pedestrians.
No safety reason given
The extract concludes that the development would harm highway safety, but gives no explanation of the problem.
Helped or needed
Driveway connection found safe
Double driveway found acceptable
The Inspector found no unacceptable highway-safety impact and compliance with the requirement for a safe, appropriate road connection. The extract gives no evidence detail.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal show how parking loss would obstruct traffic or endanger pedestrians?
- Is there evidence of a safety effect beyond the existing situation?
- Does the refusal say why the driveway connection is unsafe?
Appeals 90517 and 77316 also cover other issues, so their highway-safety findings do not explain the dismissals. 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
10 October 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘a double driveway within the front garden with a crossing over the public footpath following partial demolition of dwarf wall.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal upon i) the character and appearance of the area and ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would therefore comply with Policy DM41 of the [name] 2 which requires amongst other things, a safe and appropriate connection to the road network.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
17 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of hip-to-gable loft conversion with a rear dormer. Appeal B Reference: 6002541 [site address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
Therefore, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon (a) the designated heritage assets: Stanley Park Conservation Area (CA) and the Stanley Park grade II* registered park and garden, (b) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and privacy, and (c) highway safety, with particular regard to parking availability.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that parking availability is a particular issue at this location, or that it is having an adverse impact on highway safety. No’s 48 and 50 already rely on on-street parking to meet their parking needs, and any increase from extending these properties in the manner proposed would be limited. Consequently, from the evidence presented to me, I am unable to conclude that the proposal would be harmful to highway safety, with particular regard to parking availability, and so I find no conflict with [name] 2 policy DM41.
Paragraph 34 · Source page 6
24 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the construction of a flat-roof, single-storey first-floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area and b) highway safety with specific regard to parking provision.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the reduction of on-site car parking would create additional pressures for on-street parking, resulting in harm to highway safety through unacceptably inhibiting the free flow of traffic and being a danger to pedestrians. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS7 of LP P1; Policies DM17, DM20 and DM41 of LP P2; the SPD and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these policies and guidance require new developments to have regard to the size and arrangement of streets and incorporate well integrated car parking in accordance with standards. Any loss should be justified and appropriately mitigated.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
2 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the ‘widening of existing access, removal of part of existing front wall, rebuilding of existing gatepost and alterations to hardstanding.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon i) the character and appearance of the area and ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
There is no evidence before me that the residual cumulative impacts of the proposal on the road network would be severe. Neither has it been demonstrated that the proposal would result in an unacceptable effect on highway safety over and above the existing situation. I therefore find that the proposal would not have an unacceptable highway safety impact. It would comply with Policy DM41 of the [name] 2 which requires amongst other things, a safe and appropriate connection to the road network. It would also accord with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
29 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the removal of part front garden wall, creation of hardstanding and formation of vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] have found that the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, I conclude that it would cause harm to highway safety. As such it would conflict with the development plan and there are no other material considerations that would outweigh that conflict.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3