Elmbridge Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Elmbridge?
This review helps you check access, turning and parking points against your refusal notice.
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 204
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- 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: Elmbridge LPA (51.35714, −0.392142). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Elmbridge Borough Council appeal findings
Elmbridge access splays and parking layouts
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples cannot provide an allowed comparator.
Counted against appeals
Elmbridge access and parking concerns
Poor visibility and turning
The proposed access had limited visibility and difficult on-site turning, which the Inspector found likely to endanger pedestrians and other road users.
Parking blocked pedestrian movement
The depth and position of a parking space were likely to obstruct pedestrian movement.
Dropped kerb harmed access
For a dropped kerb, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm accessibility and highway safety.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Elmbridge comparator
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Pedestrian splays needed evidence
A dismissed access appeal lacked substantive evidence that pedestrian visibility splays could be achieved beside an established access.
Turning needed to work on site
The dismissed access appeal shows that clear visibility and easy on-site turning still needed to be demonstrated.
Parking needed a clear route
The dismissed parking appeal shows that space size and placement still needed to avoid obstructing pedestrians.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice cite missing pedestrian visibility splays?
- Does it say vehicles cannot turn safely within the site?
- Does it identify parking that could obstruct pedestrians?
The selected extracts include conclusion-only reasoning, and Appeal 87358 addresses more than highway safety. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
7 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for vehicular access and charging point following partial demolition of existing front boundary wall and removal of gate.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above I conclude in respect of the main issue, that due to lack of visibility and ease of on-site turning, the proposal would cause danger and inconvenience to pedestrians and other highway users and interfere with the free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway resulting in unacceptably harmful impact upon highway safety. To allow the development would therefore be contrary to the objectives Policy CS25 of Elmbridge Borough Council – [name] ([name] 2011), Policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan ([name] 2015), Elmbridge Borough Council – Parking supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they require, along with other things, vehicular access to and from the highway to be convenient and safe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
14 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘new dwelling in garden of [site address] . 2 storey with 3 bedrooms and additional rooms in roof space’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether or not the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of living and outdoor amenity space; • the effect if the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 90, with particular regard to outlook and light; • whether or not the mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements would be met; • whether or not the site would be at risk of flooding, having regard to the flood risk mitigation proposed; and • the effect of the proposed development on the provision of parking, with particular regard to highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would be capable of providing satisfactory parking and would not result in an adverse effect on highway safety . In this regard, it would comply with Policy CS25 of the CS and Policy DM7 of the DMP insofar as they require maximum parking standards to be applied and for parking provision to be appropriate to the development proposed.
Paragraph 36 · Source page 7
19 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, including [site address] [address] and 121, 123 and [address], with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight; • whether the proposal would provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupants, with particular regard to the internal space and private amenity space; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and • the effect of the proposed parking arrangements on highway safety and on-street parking stress.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the depth of one of the car parking spaces and its position, the arrangement would likely obstruct pedestrian movements in conflict with Policy DM7 and the [name], which, amongst other matters, require that parking arrangements avoid creating obstructions to the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, should be wholly contained within the site and must meet minimal dimensional standards. These shortcomings also result in a conflict with the Framework, which requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all users and to avoid designs that obstruct pedestrian movement or compromise highway safety.
Paragraph 36 · Source page 7
18 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “erection of a detached garage with shared roof and new drive access including drop kerb”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; highway safety; and the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council’s Highway Design Advice for Minor Development requires 2m x 2m pedestrian visibility splays on both sides of a vehicular access, free of obstructions between 0.8m and 2m (except streetlights and clear‐stemmed trees). The submitted plans indicate a width of 3.4m on the inner side and 4.5m on the outer side of the proposed crossover. There is no clear indication of the pedestrian visibility splays before me. Accordingly, in the absence of any substantive evidence that these splays can be achieved, and given the close proximity to the established access at No 15, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be acceptable in highway safety terms. That there is an existing crossover elsewhere at the site does not overcome this issue.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
8 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be acceptable from an accessibility and highway safety perspective; and ii) if there is any harm identified under the first main issue, whether such harm is outweighed by the personal circumstances put forward by the appellant.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on accessibility and highway safety. As such it would conflict with Policy DM7 (Access and Parking) of the Elmbridge Local Plan: Development Management Plan (2015) which sets out that the siting of accesses and access to and from the highway should be safe and Policy CS25 (Travel and Accessibility) of the [name] (2011) which promotes accessibility to services. The proposal would conflict with one of the objectives of the Surrey County Council Local Transport Plan 2022-2032, namely to provide well connected communities that encourage social mobility and ensure no-one is left behind.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3