Derbyshire Dales District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Derbyshire Dales?
See the parking and access points inspectors accepted or found unproven in selected Derbyshire Dales appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 38
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 2
- of 5 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 4 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Derbyshire Dales LPA (53.017777, −1.672288). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Derbyshire Dales District Council appeal findings
Parking and access evidence in Derbyshire Dales
The selected examples include fewer allowed appeals than the matched local set. Appeal 84524 is at the issue's edge because its dismissal concerned character and appearance.
Counted against appeals
Access harm and missing safety evidence
Conversion impact not demonstrated
For the store conversion and new parking spaces, the inspector said an acceptable effect on highway safety had not been demonstrated.
Re-established access caused significant harm
The proposed re-established vehicle access was judged to cause significant harm to highway safety.
Helped or needed
No highway harm from parking and access
Holiday-let parking and access caused no highway harm
The inspector's conclusion was that the holiday-let parking and access would not harm highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which access hazard does the refusal notice identify?
- Does it explain how the parking arrangement is unsafe?
- What evidence would show that access is safe?
The cited cases range from holiday-let use to a store conversion and re-established access, so their facts differ. 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
8 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as “change of use from a dwelling into a 3 bed holiday let with replacement doors and windows”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue on both appeals is the effect of the proposals on highway safety with regards to parking and access.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposals would not have a harmful effect on highway safety in terms of parking and access. The proposals would be in accordance with Policies HC19, HC21 and EC8 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (DDLP) which seeks proposals to manage travel demand, ensure development can be accessed in a sustainable manner and ensure a location is capable of accommodating increased numbers of visitors without detriment to road safety or congestion.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
17 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of dwellinghouse and associated works without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 23/00885/FUL, dated 12 April 2024.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to its effect upon the CA and whether the setting of the nearby listed [address] would be preserved; and • highway safety.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon highway safety and it would preserve the significance of the nearby listed building. However, I conclude that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area in general.
Paragraph 60 · Source page 8
19 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the “conversion of existing store to extend existing dwelling to form new kitchen and additional bedroom including the formation of two car parking spaces with the construction of new retaining walls”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including Bonsall Conservation Area (‘the CA’) and the setting of the Peak District National Park (‘the PDNP’); and b) highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In reference to the second main issue, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on highway safety. It would therefore conflict with Policy S4 of the LP which, amongst other things, requires developments to have a safe access.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
16 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the re-establishment of vehicular access to the above property, with parking for one vehicle only, with turntable.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety for users of [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the highway safety of users of [address], in conflict with Policy S3 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan. This policy states that planning permission will be granted for development where the access would be safe. It would also be at odds with the Framework, which aims to ensure that development is served by a safe and suitable access and would not have unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4