Hertsmere Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Hertsmere?
See the crossing and driveway risks inspectors identified 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
- 7 of 86
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 8 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: Hertsmere LPA (51.677287, −0.281049). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Hertsmere Borough Council appeal findings
Hertsmere crossings and driveway movements
No allowed local comparator is available in the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Risks at crossings and driveways
Access on a zebra crossing
An access opening directly onto a zebra crossing was judged dangerous where pedestrians waited and children used the route.
Surprise on the footway
An unfamiliar driveway and wide green space could make drivers emerge or turn faster than footway users expected.
No allowed example matched
What access plans still needed to show
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Protect waiting pedestrians
The dismissed crossing example shows an access still needed to avoid endangering people waiting at the zebra crossing.
Avoid surprise on the footway
The dismissed crossover example shows drivers still needed to emerge or turn without surprising people on the footway.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify people waiting near a crossing or school route?
- Would the access appear unfamiliar to people using the footway?
- Could drivers emerge or turn faster than pedestrians expect?
For 84281 and 23410, the supplied extracts give only a no-harm conclusion. 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
4 examples
12 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
retention of wall and electronic gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the highway network, with particular regard to highway safety and the free flow of traffic for all users; and • flood risk.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, I find no conflict with CS Policy CS19 or SADMPP Policy SADM32 which relate to developments for key community facilities, which this is not. Nor do I find conflict in respect of CS Policy CS25 as I find no highway safety harm ensues.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
28 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The first main issue to be determined in Appeal A is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surroundings. The second issue in this appeal is the effect of the vehicular access on highway safety and convenience.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Turning to the issue of highway safety, I have noted, of course, that a pedestrian crossing is laid out immediately in front of the appeal site. The vehicular access opens directly on to the zebra crossing, where pedestrians would be waiting. The crossing is located at the end of the school access way and the path is evidently much used by children and others, especially at certain times of the day. The existing vehicular access arrangement is obviously unsatisfactory and I accept that the layout represents a serious safety hazard to pedestrians using the adjacent public footway and the pedestrian crossing.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
20 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new crossover from road onto driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development firstly, on the character and appearance of the local area; and secondly, on highway safety and on-street vehicle parking for users of [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Some highway users would be aware of the need to be vigilant for vehicles entering and exiting front gardens. However, as dropped kerbs and driveways are not a familiar feature along this section of [address] many others may not. The width of the footway on either side of the site would also provide sufficient space for pedestrians and cyclists to stop a little distance away from a vehicle emerging from the site. Even so, the wide expanse of green space in front of the site might also encourage a driver to exit the site or turn the vehicle quicker than footway users might normally expect, possibly catching some people by surprise. For all these reasons, I have little doubt that the proposal would pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
11 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of new boundary treatment (brick wall with brick piers and railings and timber fencing between the piers) to [address] and [address] frontages and within the site (fencing with trellis above).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues common to both Appeal A and Appeal B are; - the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; - the effect of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian mobility.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that the development is not detrimental to highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian mobility. The development therefore accords with Policies CS22, CS25 and SP1 of the Strategy together with Policies SADM30 and SADM40 of the SADM. The development is also consistent with the SPD and Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2014 which collectively, and amongst other aspects seek to ensure no adverse impact on highway safety, including the safety of pedestrians. It would also comply with the Framework’s highway safety objectives.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 4
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
13 March 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
installation of a front garden wall/fence and electric gate following removal of hedge, and erection of a rear garden outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: the effect of the front boundary treatment on the character and appearance of the area; the effect of the front boundary treatment on highway safety, and the effect of the outbuilding on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to light and outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I conclude that the boundary treatment does not have an adverse effect on highway safety. It therefore accords with Policy CS25 of the CS and Policy SADM40 of the SADMP insofar as these require development proposals to not harm the safety of highway users or unduly harm the flow of vehicles.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3