Colchester City Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Colchester?
Learn which parking, crossover and footway risks inspectors recorded in the selected local 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 86
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- 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: Colchester LPA (51.872575, 0.860916). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Colchester City Council appeal findings
Colchester parking, crossovers and footway safety
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, and the selected examples do not cover every dismissed record.
Counted against appeals
Parking, crossovers and footway risks
Parking by traffic calming
The Inspector concluded that on-street parking beside a narrow road and roundabout would harm pedestrian and highway safety.
Unsafe crossover and parking bay
The Inspector concluded that a crossover and parking bay would unacceptably affect highway safety and convenience.
Potential footway obstruction
Potential footway obstruction was found harmful to pedestrian safety, and the suggested benefits did not outweigh it.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Comparable road conditions
Nearby permissions carried little weight because little information was provided, and a recent permission had different road conditions.
No unacceptable risk
The Inspector concluded that the proposal posed no unacceptable highway-safety risk.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify parking near traffic calming, a narrow road or a roundabout?
- Does it explain any risk of vehicles obstructing the footway?
- Do cited nearby permissions have matching road conditions?
Appeal 38696 also covers streetscene; its highway extract concludes there was no unacceptable risk. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
30 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a change the garage to [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the development on pedestrian and highway safety in [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The traffic calming measures in this part of [address], including the narrow road and roundabout fronting the site, do not make it conducive for safe on street parking. In these circumstances, I conclude that the development has an adverse effect on pedestrian and highway safety in [address]. Thus, the development is contrary to Policies DM21,and DM22 in the Colchester Borough Local Plan Section 2 (2022) where they seek to ensure adequate parking and the safe passage of all highway users. In addition, the development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks to ensure highway safety.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
14 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a 2-bay garage/car lodge on front driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the streetscene; and the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 111 of The Framework advises that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. For the reasons given above, I conclude that there would not be an unacceptable risk. Consequently, I do not find against the proposal on this issue.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
29 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application form as a “drop kerb to [address] to allow vehicle access to new gravel hardstand as outlined on block plan”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety and convenience.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In spite of these secondary considerations, I am convinced that the proposed works to create a crossover and parking bay would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and convenience and, moreover, that the proposed scheme is unnecessary in any case. Hence, I have concluded that it would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed. Even though I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
17 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
four dropped curbs to the driveway with two half drop/sloped and the driveway to be made from the front garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular reference to pedestrians.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have the potential to result in obstruction of the footway, to the detriment of the safety of pedestrians, and would not be outweighed by the suggested benefits. This would be contrary to the highway safety aims set out at paragraphs 111 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and LP2 Policies DM21 and DM22 and the Council’s adopted parking standards.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
8 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “new 3 bedroom house”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and, • The effect on highway safety
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
My attention has been drawn to permissions granted by the Council. However, little information has been provided regarding most of these developments. The site at [address] is a recent permission, but I note that site is on a straight section of road, even if near a pedestrian crossing and with a junction on the opposite side of the road. The highway safety considerations in that case would therefore have been different to this proposal. These other permissions consequently only carry very limited weight in the determination of this appeal.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2