London Borough of Enfield appeal evidence
Refused over unsafe vehicle access in Enfield?
See why Enfield inspectors raised safety concerns about vehicle access and which forward-exit safeguard helped.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 34 of 226
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 31
- of 34 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: Enfield LPA (51.650998, −0.087236). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Enfield appeal findings
Enfield access safety near junctions
The selected examples all concern vehicle access and have a different allowed/dismissed mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Junctions and pavement crossings
Reversing near two junctions
A dropped kerb was dismissed because reversing near two junctions increased likely vehicle and pedestrian conflict.
More traffic across the pavement
Widening an access was harmful because it increased vehicle movements across a busy pavement near three junctions.
No evidence for an exception
The Inspector concluded that the appeal had no substantive evidence for an exception to the cited access policy and guidance.
Helped or needed
Safeguards for forward exit
A usable manual override
A vehicle turntable was allowed because a manual override let the vehicle leave in forward gear after a fault.
No adverse impact found
For a vehicular crossover, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would not adversely affect highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say reversing near a junction is unsafe?
- Does it say more vehicles would cross a busy pavement?
- Does it question whether vehicles can leave in forward gear?
Appeal 74927 gives only the Inspector’s conclusion, not detailed crossover reasoning. 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
2 examples
19 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a vehicular crossover and part demolition of a boundary wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact on highway safety. Consequently, it would not be contrary to Policy DMD46 of the DMD when read as a whole, or [name] 24 and 30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (adopted 2010) which, among other things, aim to ensure developments are of high-quality design and do not have a harmful effect on highway safety or obstruct the passage of vehicular traffic.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
11 November 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of hardstanding with car turntable in connection with vehicular access
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, including the free flow of traffic.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant says that the proposed turntable would be installed, maintained and serviced by the manufacturer and would permit a large SUV type vehicle to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. The Council’s main concern appears to be that in the case of mechanical failure, a car would need to reverse onto the highway. However, the evidence before me indicates that the turntable would feature a manual override and therefore in the unlikely event of an electrical or mechanical fault, a vehicle would still be able to leave the site in a forward gear, negating the need for a reverse manoeuvre onto [address]. Taking into account the manual safeguard, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely affect highway safety.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
16 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a dropped kerb.
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
Even if I were to agree with the Inspector’s conclusions in 3339342, reversing onto [address] poses unacceptable safety risks for the reasons I have set out. Furthermore, the current proposal differs in that the site is closer to and almost opposite the junction with Farmleigh, exacerbating potential hazards. Its proximity to both junctions increases the likelihood of vehicular and pedestrian conflict and further compromises highway safety.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
13 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a front boundary wall with gates together with vehicular access and hard standing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the impact of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Policy DMD 46 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (EDMD) states that new accesses to busy classified roads will only be permitted where, amongst other criteria, there would be no adverse impact on highway safety; there would be no adverse impact on the free flow and safety of traffic, and in particular, the effective movement of bus services; and the proposal would enable vehicles to enter and leave the property in question in forward gear. This policy is consistent with the approach set out in the Council’s Revised Technical Standards for [name] (excluding Heavy Duty Crossovers) (April 2013) (Technical Guidance). Based, therefore, on the evidence before me and the findings set out above, the appeal proposal would be contrary to policy DMD 46 as well as the Technical Guidance, and there is no substantive evidence to suggest that an exception to that policy/guidance should be made in this case.
Paragraph 14 · Source pages 2, 3
9 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extend the vehicle access by 1.3m to total 4.8m while dropped kerb is being carried out next door ([address]).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is proposed to widen the access from the appeal property directly onto [address]. This would significantly increase the scope for vehicles to drive across the pavement between the front of the appeal property and [address]. The appeal property is located adjacent to a busy road, close to three junctions, most notably that with [address], just a few houses away. 10.During the time of my site visit, I observed [address] to be busy and noted numerous vehicles entering and leaving [address]; and leaving [address] and [address], both of which are one-way streets. I also noted numerous pedestrians walking along [address] and attempting to cross the area’s roads. The proposed development would provide increased scope for vehicles to enter and exit the property onto and from [address], across the pavement, potentially at the same time. 11.Vehicles would need to do this across a pavement nearby to three road junctions. It was clear to me during my site visit that [address] in this vicinity comprises a relatively busy pedestrian and vehicle thoroughfare as pedestrians seek to reach the wider area’s services amenities and road users seek to progress their journey along [address] or to turn at nearby junctions. 12.Consequently, I find that any increase in the number of vehicles manoeuvring or crossing over the pavement outside the appeal property, whether in forwards or reverse gear, and entering onto or exiting from [address], would result in an unacceptable increase in risk to the safety of pedestrians and other road users in this area. 13.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policies T4 and T6; to Core Strategy1 Policies CP24 and CP25, and to DMD2 Policy DMD46, which together amongst other things, requires development to take account of highway safety.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2