East Hertfordshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in East Hertfordshire?
See the access, visibility and traffic-flow facts inspectors recorded in selected local examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 220
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 7 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: East Hertfordshire LPA (51.865109, −0.008196). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Hertfordshire District Council appeal findings
Dropped kerbs, visibility splays and traffic flow
The selected examples have a more dismissal-heavy outcome mix than the matched local set, and a dismissed extract gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Where access movements raised safety concerns
Reversing would disrupt a busy road
The new dropped kerb would make cars reverse in or out, adding awkward movements and significantly interfering with traffic flow on a busy classified A-road.
Visibility splays affected hedgerows
The extract says hedgerow and tree removal was not ruled out to facilitate visibility splays and resolve highway-safety harm.
Unacceptable highway-safety effect
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety.
Helped or needed
What made the access appear safe
Clear road conditions
The highway was straight and flat, with no substantive distractions or obstructions hampering access and egress.
Time for drivers to react
Approaching cars' limited speed gave other road users ample opportunity to react to a vehicle reversing onto or off the site.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify reversing movements onto the road?
- Would visibility splays require hedgerow or tree removal?
- Does the notice explain road speed, obstructions and reaction time?
Appeal 91127 covers other issues, and its positive highway-safety conclusion does not explain the overall dismissal. 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
16 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for the creation of a hardstanding vehicular access and dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with particular regard to safe access and egress.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The highway is straight and flat without substantive distractions or obstructions that might hamper access and egress. In mind of the limited speed of approaching cars, other road users would have ample opportunity to react to a vehicle reversing onto or off of the appeal site. Therefore, whilst recognising the concerns raised by the Highway Authority, the proposal would allow a vehicle to enter and exit the site in a safe manner, without detriment to highway safety. Consequently, the proposal would accord with policies TRA2 and TRA3 of the DP.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
29 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing stable/storage building, widening of existing access on to [address], and erection of three detached dwellings with associated garaging, parking and landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: whether the proposal would be suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning the countryside; 1 APP/J1915/W/23/3322310 the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area; the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and the effect of the proposed development on flood risk.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposed development could be developed in a way that would not be prejudicial to highway safety. As such, it would not conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies TRA2 and CFLR3 of the LP and Policy 15 of the NP. These policies seek, among other things, to ensure safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users and that proposals do not adversely affect any Public Right of Way or give rise to unacceptable highway dangers.
Paragraph 23 · Source pages 4, 5
10 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Development of 7no. self build dwellings, with access route, associated landscaping and parking provision.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the site is a suitable location for development having regard to the locational policies of the development plan; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including whether it would i) preserve the settings of the nearby listed buildings; ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Walkern Conservation Area and iii) provide suitable protection for trees and hedgerows; • whether the proposal would make appropriate provision for biodiversity net gain.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. It would fail to comply with EHDP Policy TRA2 which requires development to be acceptable in highway safety terms. Character and Appearance
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
21 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposed development would be in an appropriate location for housing with particular regard to the development strategy in the development plan, and its effect on highway safety, the character and appearance of the area, and ecology.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The removal of hedgerow and trees within it, to facilitate the provision of the visibility splays and resolve the harm to highway safety has not been ruled out by any party. Apart from the gap, the appeal site’s frontage is lined by a tall, dense hedgerow interspersed by the occasional tree that is growing more or less up to the edge of the carriageway’s surface. It forms part of a hedgerow that lines the southern edge of the carriageway for a considerable distance to the east and west. Together with the similarly tall and dense hedgerow on the opposite side of the carriageway, those hedgerows form an attractive landscape feature.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 5
15 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application form as a vehicle access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety and convenience.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this case, the proposed dropped kerb and its associated parking area would require cars parked at number [site address] to either enter or leave the new parking area in reverse gear. In spite of the wide verge area that is available for the crossing, this would increase the number of awkward turning movements in the highway and would inevitably interfere with the traffic flow on the main road. I am persuaded that there would be 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 11 · Source page 2