Gravesham Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Gravesham?
See local highway-safety objections and the site facts cited where inspectors found no harm.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 28 of 150
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 25
- of 28 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: Gravesham LPA (51.404032, 0.396763). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Gravesham Borough Council appeal findings
Gravesham highway safety: visibility and traffic flow
Some selected extracts only state a conclusion; 90160 covers several other issues and is at the edge of this issue.
Counted against appeals
Gravesham pedestrian and traffic risks
No substantive safety evidence
In 80704, the Inspector was not satisfied that the proposal would avoid harm to pedestrians or keep traffic flowing freely.
Temporary harm still counted
In 90160, a temporary permission would still leave considerable highway-safety harm and potential consequences for site users.
Helped or needed
Gravesham access and visibility evidence
Cautious movements near parking
In 87810, neighbouring parking meant road users would be expected to move cautiously despite reduced pedestrian visibility in one direction.
No harm from dropped kerb
In 82814, the Inspector concluded that the proposed vehicle access and dropped kerb would not harm highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify pedestrian visibility, traffic flow or both?
- What site evidence shows road users will move cautiously?
- Does the refusal explain why temporary permission would not remove safety harm?
Appeal 85413 was dismissed overall, but its displayed extract finds no highway-safety harm, so it cannot explain a local safety objection. 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
24 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of new fencing facing on to [address].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and highway safety
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the development would not achieve pedestrian visibility standards in one direction, given the arrangement of the neighbouring parking spaces, it would not be unexpected for road users in this location who would therefore be cautious in their movements. As such, in these site specific circumstances, there would not be an unacceptable effect on the operation of the highway or highway safety in this case. Consequently, a condition limiting the height of the fence would not be necessary.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
15 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of front wall, creation of vehicle access and driveway to front with installation of a dropped kerb and associated works to pathway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area; and, • Highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety. Accordingly, it complies with Policy CS11 of the [name] and Policy T5 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review Saved and [name] 2014. These policies, amongst other things, require new development to mitigate their impact on the highway and for no danger to arise.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
2 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two storey, three bedroom detached dwelling with rooms in the roof space and an integral garage without complying with a condition attached to planning permission [name]/20080421, dated 4 July 2008.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on pedestrian and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, drawing all the above points together, I do not find there to be sufficient substantive evidence before me to conclude that there would be no harm to pedestrian safety or the free flow of traffic. [name] have not found that the adverse effects of the proposal would be mitigated there would be conflict with this aspect of Policy CS11 of the LPCS.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
10 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
‘change of use of the land for the stationing of 8 mobile homes for gypsy and traveller use, erection of associated day rooms, soft landscaping and laying of hardstanding’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; iii) the effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance of the area; iv) the effect of the proposal on highway safety; v) whether or not the proposal would be in a suitable location having regard to occupiers’ access to services, facilities and sustainable transport modes; vi) the effect of the proposal on biodiversity; vii) the effect of the proposal on European designated and Ramsar sites; and viii) if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
A planning condition could be imposed requiring restoration of the site following cessation of residential use at the end of a temporary period. Accordingly, the overall extent of harm to the Green Belt, to the landscape character and appearance of the area and arising from the location of the development in relation to occupiers’ access to services, facilities and public transport would be reduced as harm would persist only for a limited period. However, while I accept that the identified harm to highway safety would also occur over a restricted period, there would remain considerable harm during that period. In my judgement, the magnitude and potential consequences of the harm for occupiers of the site, including children, visitors and other users of [address] remains an overriding factor which would outweigh the benefits, even if development was permitted only for a temporary period.
Paragraph 81 · Source page 13
5 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the creation of vehicular access and hard standing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed materials on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The local planning authority has confirmed that it raises no objection to the revised materials. On this basis, I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to harm to highway safety and that the requirements of condition 2 are met.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2