Coventry City Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Coventry?
See why dropped-kerb access proposals raised safety concerns and what the allowed example showed.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 39 of 155
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 21
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 34
- of 39 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: Coventry LPA (52.416887, −1.519744). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Coventry City Council appeal findings
Dropped kerbs beside crossings, bus stops and cycleways
The selected examples lean dismissed, while the matched local set leans allowed.
Counted against appeals
Crossings, bus stops and cycleways
Crossing and bus-stop conflicts
Reversing by a signalised pedestrian crossing and access over a bus stop were said to conflict with people crossing, waiting and boarding.
A planned cycleway crossing
Crossing a cycleway intended to separate cyclists from vehicle traffic was said to increase the potential for accidents.
Harm stated without site detail
The extracts conclude that the access would compromise or harm highway safety, but do not show the prior site analysis.
Helped or needed
What the allowed access showed
No unacceptable safety impact
For this dropped-kerb proposal, the Inspector concluded that it would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety.
Cited policies seemed irrelevant
In this appeal, the Inspector said the policies cited in the refusal did not appear directly relevant and gave significant weight to Framework guidance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a crossing, bus stop or cycleway near the access?
- Would vehicles need to reverse where pedestrians cross or wait?
- Does the refusal explain why each cited highway policy applies?
The displayed Coventry examples concern dropped-kerb access, so they may not cover other highway-safety proposals. 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
20 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb for vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Whilst the Council cite policies AC2 and AC3 of the Coventry Local Plan in their reason for refusal neither of the policies appears to be directly relevant in the context of this appeal. I shall therefore give significant weight to the Framework’s guidance, already referred to, as a material consideration.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
25 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
A drop kerb at the front of the property to be attached to a driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
At the time the application was refused, the council were consulting on a proposed cycleway along the side of [address], as part of the Eastern Green sustainable urban extension. The council has confirmed that Active Travel England, the government’s executive agency responsible for promoting walking and cycling, has signed off the route and construction is expected to commence in the summer of 2026. The proposed development would cross the cycleway, which is intended to separate cyclists from vehicular traffic, and thus increase the potential for accidents. It would therefore conflict with Policy AC4 of the LP which supports improved pedestrian and cycle routes.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
2 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
dropped kerb for vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, the proposal would introduce reversing manoeuvres close to a signalised pedestrian crossing. Given the volume and mix of movement along this part of [address], this would cause potential conflicts with, and constitute a hazard to, pedestrians using the crossing at a point where pedestrians would quite reasonably expect a place of refuge from vehicles. The access would extend over a bus stop and there would be times when buses stop in front of the access to allow passengers on and off the bus and when passengers would be standing on or near the access waiting for buses. This would likely cause conflict between the use of the access and bus stop, including the access and egress from the site, buses stopping and obscuring the access and pedestrians waiting for buses, leading to harmful highway safety issues for vehicles and pedestrians.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
28 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
formation of vehicular access and a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would compromise the highway safety of the site and area. This would be in conflict with Policies AC2 and AC4 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (adopted 2017). These policies seek to, amongst other things to ensure that development proposals do not have a negative impact on the safety of the highway network. Furthermore, I find conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (revised 2021) which, along with other matters, at paragraph 112 c) seeks developments that minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
7 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb for vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm highway safety, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; and to Coventry Local Plan (2016) Policies AC2 and AC4, which together amongst other things, seek to protect highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2