Dacorum Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Dacorum?
See which parking and access facts inspectors accepted, and what to test in a highway-safety refusal.
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 110
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 1
- 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: Dacorum LPA (51.778195, −0.540893). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dacorum Borough Council appeal findings
Dacorum parking evidence for highway safety
The displayed dismissed extract found no highway-safety harm, so it does not explain a local concern on this issue.
Counted against appeals
No parking harm in dismissal
On-street parking was accepted
The inspector concluded that on-street parking would not harm highway safety in this example.
Helped or needed
Parking evidence that helped
Frontage capacity met the standard
Site evidence showed three to four spaces on the frontage, which the inspector found sufficient for this case.
Travel choices reduced car use
A nearby bus route and shops gave alternatives to private-car trips for some journeys.
Survey absence was not decisive
Despite no parking survey, evidence and a site visit supported the finding that the parking standard was met.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice state your actual on-site parking capacity?
- Could visitors park without creating a highway-safety problem?
- Are nearby bus, walking and cycling options described accurately?
Some displayed allowed extracts state conclusions only, without the underlying 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
4 examples
24 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
2 no. new outbuildings in front garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the appeal proposal would not harm highway safety and therefore would not conflict with policy CS12 of the [name] or Saved policy 51 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991 – 2011 (2004) which together require development to have no significant impact on safety implications and to provide safe and satisfactory means of access for all users.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
9 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alterations to front garden to create off road parking space for one car for EV charging point.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the work on the availability of both off-road and on-street parking; and • the effect on pedestrian and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude on this issue that the proposal for the formation of an off-road parking space will not have a harmful effect on pedestrian or highway safety. As such there is no conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS8 regarding sustainable transport or Policy CS12 regarding a safe and satisfactory access.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
21 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene; and secondly, the effect of the proposed development on highway safety with respect to demand for on-street parking.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed development would have no materially harmful effect on highway safety with respect to demand for on-street parking. In consequence, it would comply with [name] CS8 and CS12 and with the parking standards SPD. Taken together and amongst other things these expect new development to provide sufficient, safe and convenient parking, based on car parking standards and the accessibility of the location such that highway safety is safeguarded.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
10 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of rear dormer roof extension, three rooflights to the front and alterations to height of the roof to facilitate a loft conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed loft conversion on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene and the surrounding area; and secondly, the effect of the proposed extension on highway safety with respect to parking provision.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I agree with the appellant that, on the basis of the evidence including my site visit, the frontage of the dwelling would readily accommodate three cars, possibly more. Moreover, although the dwelling lies within accessibility Zone 3 (least accessible) I note that it lies in an urban setting, close to a bus route and within walking or cycling distance of local shops and amenities, thus providing an alternative to transport by private car for some journeys. In addition, there is ample, unrestricted street parking on Leverstock Green Road that could accommodate visitor parking without any material harm to highway safety. I therefore consider that, notwithstanding the lack of submitted parking surveys, the SPD standard would be met by the three to four on-site spaces which would be sufficient in this case. There would thus be no material conflict with the SPD.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
22 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use from 6 person to 9 person HMO.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: The integrity of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation; and, The effect on highway safety, with particular regard to on-street parking.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Drawing all of the above together, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety, due to on-street parking. Accordingly, it complies with Policies CS8 and CS12 of the [name]. These policies, amongst other things, require development to provide sufficient parking. It would also not conflict with paragraph 116 of the Framework, which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3