London Borough of Brent appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Brent?
See which access and parking evidence inspectors accepted or found missing in selected Brent 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 178
- 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: Brent LPA (51.559665, −0.267612). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Brent appeal findings
Brent crossovers: turning, reversing and parking
The selected examples lean more towards dismissals than the matched local set, so the comparison is limited.
Counted against appeals
Crossover and reversing concerns
Turning space was not shown
The drawings showed paving but no vehicle tracking or suitably shaped turning area. The inspector saw a risk of reversing conflict on a busy road.
Crossover safety remained unproven
The submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the proposed crossover would avoid an unacceptable effect on highway safety.
Front driveway judged unsafe
The inspector concluded that the front driveway and dropped kerb proposal would prejudice highway safety.
Helped or needed
Parking found not excessive
No highway-safety harm identified
For the one-vehicle proposal, the inspector identified neither excessive parking nor highway-safety harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Do your drawings show vehicle tracking and a suitable turning area?
- Could vehicles reverse into pedestrians or other road users?
- Does the refusal say crossover safety has not been demonstrated?
Appeal 63368 also covered conservation-area and sustainable-travel issues, so only its highway-safety passage was used. 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
6 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the addition of a light well, drop kerb to accommodate parking space for 1 vehicle and installation of EV charger.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - (1) whether the proposal would result in excessive levels of off-street parking at the appeal property, and its effect upon highway safety, and (2) the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
When all of this is considered, I am satisfied that there would be no level of parking provision at No 93 that could reasonably be considered excessive and neither am I able to identify any harm to highway safety. There would therefore be no conflict with BLP Policy DMP1 as far as it relates to access and parking, or with the specific criteria set out within [name] BT2 and BT4, or with LP Policy T6.1.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
8 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Installation of vehicular access to dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed crossover upon (i) highway safety and (ii) the provision of off-street parking having regard to relevant policies of the
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Although the appellant refers to the adequacy of the garden size, drawing 29OCL/02 shows an L-shaped area of paving (as found on site) without vehicle tracking or a suitably-shaped turning area represented on these submissions to demonstrate that turning is possible. [name] observed a car facing outward at the time of my visit, on the evidence before me I am not persuaded that users of the proposed access would usually leave in forward gear and reversing into the parking area off the main road would, I consider, risk conflict with pedestrians or other road users in this busy location. This risk is accentuated by the potential to park two vehicles in tandem as suggested by the Council. Overall, given the existing available parking area off a much quieter road3 even noting the greater convenience afforded, the benefits of the proposed new access do not outweigh the harm to highway safety which I have outlined.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
7 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as proposed dropped kerb and vehicular crossover, 1x car parking space, alterations to front boundary wall, alterations to hard and soft landscaping including new retaining wall in front garden and cycle and refuse storage to front garden of dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude on the first main issue that on the basis of the evidence submitted the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed crossover would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Accordingly, it would conflict with [name] DMP1, BT2 & BT4, the DVFCP and the SPD.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
23 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
creation of a vehicular crossover including a dropped kerb, alterations to the front boundary wall, installation of electric vehicle charging point, creation of bin storage and associated hard and soft landscaping to provide one off street car parking space for the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Kilburn Conservation Area; • whether the proposal would discourage sustainable travel; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council’s Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy (the Crossover Policy), in the first instance, seeks for crossovers to avoid obstructions with street furniture, including lamp columns. Still, if this is not possible, the Crossover Policy allows for relevant street furniture to be removed/relocated subject to the determination of the relevant Council department and the applicant being responsible for the associated costs. The appellant has indicated a willingness to finance the relocation of the streetlighting column to the front of his property. This would require its feasibility to be assessed by the Council’s streetlighting team, however, from the information before me there is no robust reason to suggest that this would not be feasible or that there would be any harm associated with its relocation. Subject to the removal/relocation of the lighting column, I consider that sufficient space would be provided to enable vehicles to safely manoeuvre in and out of the proposed driveway without adverse impacts on highway safety.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
18 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the creation of a front driveway with parking space and landscaping and associated dropped kerb crossover to the public highway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • The character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; • Highway safety and parking provision; and • Drainage.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nevertheless, in view of the above, I conclude that the proposal would be prejudicial to highway safety. It therefore conflicts with BLP Policy BT4 of the BLP, which amongst other things, requires new accesses onto the movement network to be safe.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3