Epping Forest District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Epping Forest?
See which access and parking details inspectors raised in selected Epping Forest highway-safety 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 239
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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: Epping Forest LPA (51.70889, 0.148762). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Epping Forest District Council appeal findings
Epping Forest driveway and shared-space safety
Appeal 19541 gives only a gate conclusion. Appeals 86433 and 63217 found no highway-safety harm but also cover other issues.
Counted against appeals
Visibility and shared-space access concerns
Missing visibility and turning detail
The submitted plans lacked detail on visibility splays and manoeuvring space despite regular vehicle and pedestrian movements at the site.
Garage door entered shared space
The garage-door position would force a car into a shared pedestrian and vehicle surface, creating potential conflict with other users.
Helped or needed
Gate and driveway evidence
Gates had no explained reasoning
The Inspector concluded the front wall and gates did not conflict with highway-safety policy, but the displayed extract gave no explanation.
Show visibility and turning space
Without details of visibility splays and manoeuvring space, the Inspector could not reach a highway-safety conclusion.
Keep vehicles out of shared space
The example shows why a layout must avoid placing a car on the shared pedestrian and vehicle surface.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Are visibility splays and manoeuvring space shown on your plans?
- Would your garage layout place a car in shared pedestrian space?
- Does the refusal notice identify a separate issue as well?
Appeal 19541 is conclusion-only. Appeals 86433 and 63217 also include other issues. 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
19 August 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Council has not raised objection to the erection of the front wall and as such I have focussed my considerations on the gates. Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the gates on highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, construction of the front wall and gates is not in conflict with saved policy ST4 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan Alterations 2006, which seeks to ensure that new development is not detrimental to highway safety, or policy T1 of the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan (submission version 2017) which supports development proposals which do not compromise highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
24 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
new annexe outbuilding and demolition removal of miscellaneous outbuildings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area with particular reference to the setting of nearby listed buildings; • the effect of the proposal on arboricultural interests; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; and • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policies.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would make appropriate provision for onsite car parking and turning facilities, and as such would not compromise highway safety. The proposal would accord with Policy T1 of the EFDLP, which guides that development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it does not compromise highway safety.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
21 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of new boundary gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal firstly, on the character and appearance of the local area; secondly, whether sufficient information has been provided in relation to a designated heritage asset and green infrastructure; and thirdly, the effect of the proposal on highway safety for users of [address].
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the third main issue, I conclude that the proposal would not pose a significant risk to the highway safety of users of [address]. As such, the appeal scheme complies with LP Policy T1 and the Framework 2024 insofar as they aim to ensure that development does not compromise highway safety. My finding on this issue does not outweigh the harm that I have identified above.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 3
1 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single-storey rear extension and proposed driveway for ev charging.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling; and the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I read that the Council Officer’s report gives some support to this aspect of the proposal. However, the submitted plans lack detail in terms of visibility splays and any manoeuvring space. At the time of my site visit, I observed that [address] was subject to a regular number of vehicle and pedestrian movements and, therefore, the effect of the proposal on highway safety requires some further consideration. Consequently, without further detail, I am unable to conclude on this issue.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
13 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
alterations to the existing vehicle canopy to create garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the layout of parking provision and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
When all is considered, in order to maintain the existing level of parking at [site address] , the proposed position of the garage door would force a car to encroach into a shared pedestrian/vehicle surface to a degree that would, in my judgement, inconvenience other users of this space and potentially lead to conflict between moving vehicles and pedestrians. This would be harmful to highway safety. As such there would be conflict with Policy T1 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 [name], adopted March 2023, as far as it requires development proposals to avoid compromising highway safety and to provide an appropriate parking layout. For the same reason there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework as far as it requires development proposals to achieve safe and suitable access for all users.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2