London Borough of Havering appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Havering?
See how parking and access evidence featured in the selected local examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 22 of 331
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 17
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 3
- of 22 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: Havering LPA (51.563125, 0.220447). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Havering appeal findings
Havering parking shortfalls and shared-access safety
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Parking shortfalls and serious safety harm
Insufficient parking harmed highway safety
The Inspector concluded that insufficient parking would harm highway safety, although the proposed crossover would not.
Serious harm carried substantial weight
The Inspector described the highway-safety harm as significant and enduring and gave it substantial weight. The scheme benefits were limited in scale.
Helped or needed
Access features accepted in Havering
Visibility and width allowed safe passing
The Inspector found that a straight access, good visibility and sufficient width allowed cars and pedestrians to pass safely.
Slow vehicles and clear demarcation
The Inspector said the restricted access and sharp turn would slow vehicles, while low walls and landscaping provided demarcation.
No unacceptable parking harm found
The Inspector’s conclusion was that the children’s-home proposal would cause no unacceptable highway-safety or parking harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify insufficient parking, a crossover, or another highway-safety risk?
- Can your drawings show clear visibility and safe passing at the access?
- Do the plans show where people walking and vehicles would each go?
An allowed selected example offers only the Inspector’s conclusion on highway safety and parking. 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
22 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a change of use from residential (C3) to children's home (C2) for two children and young people.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposal would meet the housing needs of the area; and be suitably located to accommodate children in care with particular regard to highway safety, parking, noise, disturbance and the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. Appeal Decision: 6005371
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm with regard to its location, highway safety or parking. There is no reason why it would operate significantly differently from a dwelling with regard to its relationship with neighbours. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it would not result in significant benefits from the provision of specialist housing. As the Strategy does suggest that there is a need for children’s homes, it gains support from LP Policy 6.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
15 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of six dwellinghouses, with associated car parking and landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be an appropriate form of development with particular regard to the design, layout and effect on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect on highway safety with particular regard to access for service vehicles and any conflict between pedestrians and vehicles; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of external space and outlook; and • whether there are any material considerations which mean that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
However, the access from [address] is straight providing good visibility along its length. There would be sufficient width to enable cars and pedestrians to pass safely, and wider vehicles would only need to track over one of the pedestrian footways. The restricted width of the access and the sharp turn to the front of unit H1 would mean that vehicles would be travelling slowly. In addition, Manual for Streets acknowledges that in shared surface streets motorists tend to drive more cautiously and negotiate the right of way with pedestrians on a more conciliatory level1. There would be sufficient demarcation to the front of the properties in terms of low walls and landscaping, to ensure that conflict between pedestrians and vehicles would not arise to a harmful extent.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
26 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing garage and erection of 2 bed detached dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
with particular regard to outlook and light; and c) highway safety with particular regard to parking.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The space shown for the proposed dwelling would not appear to meet the minimum depth requirements for such. Consequently, a parked car could overhang the footway. That said, the adjoining side boundary fence to No 5 projects forward of the front boundary of the appeal site, narrowing the pavement at this point. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that any limited overhang of a vehicle would give rise to conflict with pedestrians or materially hinder their safe movement along the footway. The proposal would therefore provide adequate car parking provision and would accord with Policies 23 and 24 of the LP which sets out the minimum parking standards and support development which ensures safe and efficient use of the highway.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
21 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “proposed detached new build, two bedroom 'chalet' style house”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to technical space standards and private outdoor amenity space; • highway safety, with particular regard to the level of parking provision and the proposed crossover.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that insufficient parking provision would harm highway safety but the proposed crossover would not. However, on balance, the proposal would not accord with Policies 23 and 24 of the Local Plan, and Policy T4, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan. These policies, taken together, aim to ensure safe and efficient use of the highway and demonstrate that adverse impacts on the transport network are avoided or, where necessary, mitigated; and require proposals to meet relevant parking standards and avoid an increase in road danger. For the same reasons, it would also not accord with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 4
18 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a “new 2 bedroom/2 bathroom house on land forming part of [site address] ”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on a) highway safety with specific regard to on and off-street parking; and b) the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In this case, the proposal would result in harm to highway safety. This would be significant and enduring, and potentially impactive to life. I therefore afford it substantial weight. The benefits of the scheme, including the addition of one unit and associated economic activity during construction and occupation, would be limited in scale and largely temporary. While the shortfall in housing supply is acknowledged and attracts moderate weight, the contribution of one dwelling would make only a minimal difference to addressing that deficit.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3