Hart District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Hart?
The selected examples show parking, traffic and access evidence inspectors discussed after a highway-safety refusal.
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 96
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- 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: Hart LPA (51.284839, −0.897443). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Hart District Council appeal findings
Hart’s parking shortfalls and access checks
Appeal 17353 gives only the final conclusion, so its displayed passage does not show the facts behind it.
Counted against appeals
Hart parking pressure and traffic flow
A significant parking shortfall
The Inspector found added parking pressure and a significant shortfall would push vehicles onto the street, risking interrupted traffic flow and inconvenience to highway users.
Helped or needed
Hart access and parking evidence
No widespread displaced parking
At the site visit, the Inspector saw no widespread displaced parking and considered local vehicle speeds likely to be low, making any displacement unlikely to cause a severe highway-safety impact.
An unacceptable safety impact
In this appeal, the Inspector said highway refusal required an unacceptable safety impact or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific parking shortfall?
- Does it explain how on-street parking could interrupt traffic flow?
- Does it assess access visibility and local vehicle speeds?
The selected examples have a different mix of outcomes from the matched local set. Appeal 81331 is an edge-of-scope example: it says visibility was adequate rather than identifying a highway 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
3 examples
16 August 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the conversion of loft into habitable accommodation with rear dormer.
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
The Council makes a general reference to the NPPF in its reason for refusal. However, the Framework also provides: 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.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
1 May 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Loft conversion including installation of 2No roof-lights to the rear elevation, & 2No roof-lights to the front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on parking provision in the area and on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst only a snapshot in time, at my site visit I observed that there was no evidence of widespread displaced parking in the local area. I am mindful that vehicle speeds in and around the area would be likely to be low and therefore any displaced parking that might take place would be unlikely to result in any severe impact on highway safety or be of such a scale that it would detract from the local environment or the enjoyment of pedestrians and cyclists.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
5 July 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of an attached garage to side, replace door and window to ground floor rear with bi-fold doors and alterations to boundary wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the scheme on the character and appearance of the area and whether the proposal would lead to any highway safety concerns with regard to the use of the visitor parking spaces adjacent to the appeal site.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Given the above, the scheme would not result in any harm to highway safety and accords with Saved Policy GEN1 of the LP, 2006 and Policy NBE9 of the LP, 2020 in this regard.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
11 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
outline planning permission for access, layout and scale for 4 x no. custom self-build detached dwellings and associated access, parking and green spaces (appearance and landscaping to be left for subsequent consideration).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would accord with the requirements of the Development Plan in respect of the efficient use of land for housing, • whether the proposal should make provision for affordable housing. • whether the proposal would have a suitable mix of housing sizes, • whether adequate details in respect of flooding and drainage have been provided, and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
At appeal stage, details of visibility splays have been provided. These have been sufficient to convince the Highway Authority that there would be adequate visibility at the entrance, and that additional use of the access would not harm highway safety. Subject to conditions, the Council takes a similar view. I see little reason to take a different position.
Paragraph 30 · Source page 5
26 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part enclosure to front porch and first floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [address] • The effect of the proposal on highway safety
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In my judgement the increase in pressure from the proposal and the extent of the shortfall would be significant. It would be likely to result in additional pressure on on-street parking, risking interruption to traffic flow and inconvenience to highway users. I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause harm to highway safety
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3