Epsom and Ewell Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Epsom and Ewell?
See the local safety concerns and the facts inspectors needed before allowing a proposal.
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 67
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- 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: Epsom and Ewell LPA (51.339172, −0.261422). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council appeal findings
Epsom crossovers, parking stress and sight splays
The allowed comparison is thin: appeal 37190’s extract records a potential hazard, not why it was allowed.
Counted against appeals
Crossovers without sight splays
Visibility splays were not secured
The inspectors could not be satisfied that a crossover would be safe where a suitable visibility splay was neither shown nor committed to.
Parking stress did not outweigh danger
Existing parking stress did not answer the safety concern: a new crossover required parking bays to be kept clear and increased danger for highway users.
Access safety remained unproven
The inspector was not satisfied that the proposed access would avoid compromising safety for pedestrians or other road users.
Helped or needed
Allowed crossover extract records a hazard
A residual reversing hazard remained
The selected extract describes a slightly increased reversing hazard for pedestrians and cyclists, but does not say why this crossover appeal was allowed.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a missing or inadequate visibility splay?
- Would a crossover need parking bays kept clear to work safely?
- Does it explain risks to pedestrians, cyclists or other road users?
Appeal 62476 is a split decision about a garage conversion and off-road parking, at the edge of this crossover-heavy evidence. 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
15 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a crossover to allow disabled access to park on the driveway of [site address] .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are (i) the effect of the crossover on the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) the effect on highway safety with particular reference to pedestrians and cyclists.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As regards the second issue of highway safety, even in the more standard relationship of dwellings with their access roads there is an element of potential hazard with pedestrians and cyclists, particularly with the reverse manoeuvre of either a departure or an arrival. The hazard would be slightly increased in this instance because the pedestrian connection between the hardstanding parking area and [address] is also used by occupiers of nearby houses.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
23 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the formation of vehicular access and crossover (involving dropped kerb).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I cannot therefore be satisfied that the appeal would not compromise highway safety either to pedestrians or other road users. The proposed development would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy DM 35 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Development Management Policies 2015, Policy CS16 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Core Strategy 2007, the [name] for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework. All of which, amongst other things, seek to ensure proposals would not be prejudicial to highway safety.
Paragraph 8 · Source pages 1, 2
11 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
‘Formation of vehicular access and crossover (including dropping of kerb)’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on highway safety and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; specifically arising from the possibility of the removal of trees within the site.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Appellant has not refuted the lack of appropriate visibility splay in their submissions, but instead considers it should be balanced with existing highway safety challenges along the road. In particular, the Appellant contends that the existing on-street parking and related parking stress in the area have resulted in damage to their car. This is an unfortunate result of on-street parking, however, the proposed vehicle cross-over would not relieve on-street parking stress, as it would require the existing on-street parking bays to be kept clear. Moreover, the danger to pedestrians and other users of the highway arising from the crossover far outweighs that of the potential for cars parked in the marked bays being damaged.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
4 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a 1.8m high steel railing within existing green hedge along the front and part side boundary and extension to the existing dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed boundary treatment on the appearance of the street scene, and (ii) the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As far as I can tell from the information before me in this appeal, this has not been provided. And without a commitment to the provision of these splays to ensure that the access over the extended dropped kerb would be used without causing a highway safety hazard, I am also unable to allow the appeal insofar as it relates to the dropped kerb. This part of the appeal scheme would be in conflict with Policies CS1 and CS16 of the [name] and Policies DM10 & DM35 of the DMPD.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
7 January 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear extension and conversion of garage space into habitable use.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed works would make adequate provision for off-road parking and the effect on highway safety and the movement of traffic and pedestrians.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall on this issue I conclude that the proposed conversion of the integral garage to bedroom accommodation would not be in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety because it would add to further on-street parking stress and this would conflict with the provisions of Policy 37 and part (x) of Policy DM10 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2