Dartford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Dartford?
See the access risks inspectors identified and the limits of the allowed local extract.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 89
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 8 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: Dartford LPA (51.429859, 0.247608). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dartford Borough Council appeal findings
Dartford vehicle access, turning and visibility
The selected allowed extract, 20293, gives only a conclusion, not the facts that made the scheme acceptable on highway safety.
Counted against appeals
Reversing across the pavement
No forward exit
The frontage was too small for drivers to turn, enter and leave in forward gear, requiring a potentially hazardous reversing manoeuvre.
Restricted views by the access
Reversing over the pavement would restrict a driver’s view of approaching traffic, especially with street parking beside the proposed access.
Helped or needed
No stated design facts
Acceptable safety impact
The inspector concluded the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The extract does not identify the facts or evidence behind that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify enough frontage for vehicles to turn in forward gear?
- Does it explain whether reversing would cross a pavement or restrict traffic visibility?
- What drawing or survey shows safe access for drivers and pedestrians?
Examples 89236 and 88186 cover wider issues and give conclusion-only highway-safety findings, not the supporting 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
1 example
6 September 2022 · 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 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the scheme would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would accord with Policies DP4 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan July 2017, which promote safe access for vehicles and pedestrians. It would also be consistent with the advice in the National _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure development has an acceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
24 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb outside of [site address] for access to a drive located at the front of the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given the dimensions of the frontage, it would not be possible for vehicles to turn, enter and exit the site in a forward gear to mitigate the potential for conflict with pedestrians and other road users. This would leave motorists needing potentially to perform a more hazardous reversing manoeuvre in either arrival or departure. The resultant need for such a manoeuvre over the pavement would severely restrict the visibility of any driver to oncoming traffic approaching the access and junction. This would be exacerbated by the presence of any parked vehicles on the street adjacent to the proposed access. The proposal would therefore have the potential to result in a significant interference with the traffic flow on the main road (which is a busy classified A-road) that would be unsatisfactory in terms of highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
22 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing garage and the erection of two semi-detached dwellings with parking together with new/altered vehicle and pedestrian access .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: - • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; • Whether the site is a suitable location for residential development, having regard to access to goods and services; • Whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers; • The effect of the proposal on the supply of protected open space; • The effect of the proposal on protected species, with particular regard to bats; • Whether the proposal makes suitable provision for biodiversity; • The effect of the proposal on highway safety; and : - • Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety. This would be contrary to the aims of Policies M15 and M16 of the Local Plan which, together, amongst other things, seek to ensure that all development is acceptable in terms of highway safety.
Paragraph 74 · Source page 10
1 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
display of 1 no. freestanding 48 sheet internally illuminated digital poster display of static advertisement.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The control of advertisements is exercisable only with respect to amenity and public safety. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Against this the proposal would be harmful to local visual amenity and highway safety. The Government, within the National Planning Policy Framework, places great importance on the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places, identifying that this is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Similarly, Government places great emphasis on creating a safe transport network. These are matters weighing significantly against the proposal and, in this case, the identified harm outweighs the limited benefits accruing from the proposal. 1 Council Refs: PA/2024/0723 (Salford City Council, DC/2023/01625 (Sefton Council) and 20/01188/ADV (Portsmouth City Council)
Paragraph 32 · Source page 4
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
13 May 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
for the erection of a replacement outhouse, gazebo and black metal boundary fence and gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: ⚫ whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; ⚫ the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; ⚫ the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; ⚫ highway safety; and ⚫ whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The gates and fencing only cause a minimal impact upon openness. Taken together with the absence of any character and appearance issues (subject to the the imposition of a landscaping condition to soften their presence) and highway safety concerns, I am satisfied that other considerations do clearly outweigh the harm that arises.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4