Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Gateshead Metropolitan?
Learn which local highway-safety problems inspectors identified and which access facts were examined.
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 25
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 0
- 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: Gateshead LPA (54.935357, −1.68292). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Gateshead access and road-safety evidence
No allowed appeal appears in the matched local set. The selected examples therefore show concerns and tests from dismissed or split decisions only.
Counted against appeals
Unsafe access and public-road effects
Advertising display safety harm
The Inspector concluded that the advertising display would harm highway safety and public safety.
Four homes’ highway effect
The Inspector concluded that four homes would have a substantial adverse effect on highway safety.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Gateshead example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Shared-access use tested
In a dismissed appeal, the Inspector accepted that limited trips, retained pedestrian access and unchanged parking would not make the shared access inherently unsafe.
Visibility-splay evidence tested
The Inspector said no clear evidence showed that bins partly obscuring visibility splays would unacceptably affect highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Is the refusal about safe access or the transport network?
- Have you evidenced vehicle trips, parking and pedestrian access?
- Could junctions, ground levels or obstructions reduce visibility?
No allowed comparator is available, and Appeal 85028 also covered character and drainage. 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
3 examples
16 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of 1 no. communications kiosk with integrated defibrillator and advertising display. Appeal B Ref: 6005767 Outside [address], [site address] , [site address] [postcode]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in Appeal A is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would harm highway safety, and as such, it would be in conflict with Policy CS13 of the Planning for the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030 (2015) and Policy MSGP15 of the [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead (2021). Amongst other things, these policies require development to avoid unacceptable impacts on the safe operation of the transport network. It therefore follows that the proposed advertisement would harm public safety.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
14 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing buildings and erection of 4 no. dwellings with associated access, drainage and landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the development strategy for the area with regard to the location of housing. The second is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would have a substantial adverse effect on highway safety. Consequently, the proposal would therefore further conflict with Policy CS13 of the CS and MSGP15 of the DMP, which amongst other things state that new development will be required to secure safe access to the site for all people, not have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the transport network and connect safely to existing transport networks.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
26 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single use class C3, four bedroom residential dwellinghouse across two storeys, with a detached three bay garage block and associated landscaping and hard standings including the removal of seven non protected trees and one hedge and the replacement with six new trees to boundaries and 75 metres of native hedging and the formation or a 4.2 meter x 4.2 meter visibility to serve both the host and the new property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the [address]/[address] Area of Special Character (the ASC); • highway safety; and • surface water drainage.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The shared access with No 51 would not be unduly narrow, and I concur with the Council that owing to the low number of trips the proposal would not increase the potential for conflict. On refuse collection day the visibility splays may partially be obscured by wheelie bins, however this is not an uncommon arrangement on [address] and I have not been presented with any clear evidence that this would unacceptably affect highway safety. The appellant has confirmed that pedestrian access for No 51 would remain as existing, albeit utilising the shared access, and there would be no effect on the parking provision at No 51. The limited number of trips by all users on the shared access would not make this arrangement inherently unsafe for pedestrians and highway safety would be acceptable, in line with the provisions of the Framework.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Other appeal outcomes
2 examples
30 April 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
changing the basement from shooting range to storage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the development on parking and highway safety; • The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; • The effect of the development on protected species, particularly bats; and • Whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blaydon Conservation Area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. On the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that this threshold would be met.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
27 April 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
‘proposed change of use of existing ancillary residential outbuilding to also allow for ‘short term holiday lettings’, with alterations to approved elevations and new boundary wall’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on highway safety having regard to car parking provision; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of surrounding residential occupiers and specifically those at No [address] with regard to noise generation.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
There is, therefore, potential for the development to generate a requirement for on‐street parking which, given the existing levels of demand, would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety in the immediate area. This concern is due in part to the site’s proximity to several junctions, together with notable changes in ground levels, both of which would further compromise visibility, manoeuvrability, and safe conditions for all road users. As such, the development is contrary to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In reaching this conclusion, I note that paragraph 116 of the Framework makes clear that it is not necessary for an impact on highway safety to be severe in order to warrant refusal of planning permission; an unacceptable impact is sufficient.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3