London Borough of Croydon appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Croydon?
See the selected Croydon access examples, including safety concerns and findings of safe, suitable arrangements.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 37 of 260
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 29
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 37 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: Croydon LPA (51.355336, −0.087133). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Croydon appeal findings
Turning, visibility and parking safety
The selected examples include both outcomes, but their outcome mix is more balanced than the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Where access safety fell short
Visibility drawings missed boundary treatments
In 79053, the sight lines ran outside the site boundary and omitted boundary treatments on either side.
Safety and parking conflict
In 67508, the Inspector concluded that the dropped kerb conflicted with highway-safety and off-street-parking requirements.
Helped or needed
When access was judged safe
Access did not harm highway safety
In 46440, the Inspector concluded that the proposed vehicular access would not detrimentally affect highway safety.
Access arrangements were safe and suitable
In 49342, the Inspector concluded that the proposed access arrangements were safe and suitable.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify sight lines outside your site boundary?
- Can vehicles turn on site and leave in forward gear?
- Does the refusal explain how parking could affect highway safety?
Several displayed extracts provide conclusions or standards without earlier case-specific analysis. 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
2 examples
12 February 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a dropped kerb for vehicle 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
Overall, I am satisfied that the proposed vehicular access at [site address] would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. In these circumstances there would be no conflict with Policy DM29 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018), which seeks to ensure that development promotes sustainable growth in Croydon and reduce the impact of traffic congestion by, amongst other things, avoiding a detrimental impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
10 April 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Drawing the strings together, I consider that the proposed access arrangements would be safe and suitable. The scheme accords with Policy DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan, Policy T4 of the London Plan 2021 and the VCG, which seeks to ensure that highway safety would not be unduly compromised. The proposal is also consistent with the advice the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
4 April 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM29 and DM30 of the Local Plan and Policy T4 of the London Plan 2021, taken together, which ensure that new development does not have a detrimental effect on highway safety and that it is not compromised by the provision of off-street parking.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
13 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as formation of driveway and dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on vehicular and pedestrian highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Together and amongst other things Policy T4 of the London Plan and policy DM29 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (LP) state that proposals should not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. LP Policy DM30 states that development should ensure that the provision of parking does not compromise the movement of pedestrians, cyclist, public transport and emergency vehicles. Paragraph 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework), states that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
4 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the formation of vehicular access and removal of front boundary wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety and efficiency.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council have raised that the proposed vehicular access onto [address] would be poorly sited and designed and would be unable to achieve satisfactory pedestrian visibility splays. It would also not be possible for vehicles to turn within the site and exit in a forward gear. Reversing onto a highly trafficked road here has the potential to cause disruption and a risk to highway safety. The appellant has provided a swept path analysis, and this demonstrates that two cars can manoeuvre from [address] on to the driveway. Sight lines have also been provided on the proposed site layout. However, these are not drawn within the boundary of the site. Therefore, the sight lines do not consider the boundary treatments either side of [site address] .
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2