London Borough of Hillingdon appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Hillingdon?
See which selected Hillingdon appeal findings concerned access, pedestrians, parking and a condition.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 17 of 389
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 12
- of 17 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: Hillingdon LPA (51.541513, −0.445636). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hillingdon appeal findings
Hillingdon highway-safety findings on access and parking
The selected examples include a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set, and their extracts give conclusions rather than detailed assessments.
Counted against appeals
Hillingdon access, pedestrian and parking concerns
Access found unsafe
The Inspector concluded that the proposed access would have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety.
Pedestrian safety harmed
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm pedestrian and highway safety.
Parking found unacceptable
In the HMO example, parking was found to have unacceptable effects on highway safety and nearby living conditions.
Helped or needed
Hillingdon findings of no highway harm
No unacceptable safety harm
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to highway or pedestrian safety.
No highway harm with a condition
Subject to an appropriately worded condition, the Inspector concluded the HMO proposal would not harm highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific unsafe access?
- Does it explain a risk to pedestrians?
- Does it explain how parking would harm highway safety?
The parking example also covers nearby occupants’ living conditions, so it is only partly about highway safety. 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
7 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on pedestrian and highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to highway or pedestrian safety. It would not therefore conflict with requirements within [name] 1 or DMT 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies 2020 or Policy T4 of the London Plan 2021 that broadly seek safe and efficient vehicular access, and development that would have no significant adverse transport impacts and that would not increase road danger. I also find no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out 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.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
3 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey side and rear wrap around extension, insertion of window to first floor flank wall, change of use from single family residential to 5 bed 5 person HMO.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that, subject to an appropriately worded condition, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. In this regard, it would accord with the relevant provisions of [name] 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the LPP2 and Policies T2 and T4 of the London Plan 2021 (the LP). These policies seek, among other things, development which does not contribute to the deterioration of safety for all road users and residents, complies with relevant parking standards and addresses its transport impacts in a sustainable manner.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
10 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: ‘we would like to drop our front garden to accommodate parking our car.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed access would have an unacceptable, adverse impact on highway safety. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy DMT 2 of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2, Development Management Policies (2020) and Policy T4 of the London Plan which amongst other things, seek to ensure safe and efficient vehicular access to the highway network and prevent increased road danger. It would also fail to comply with paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to prevent unacceptable impacts on highway safety.
Paragraph 13 · Source pages 2, 3
25 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Installation of [name] to Front’.
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
Having regard to all of the above considerations, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on pedestrian and highway safety. Thus, it would fail to comply with the highway safety objectives set out in Policy T4 of the LP and [name] 2 and DMT 5 of the DMP.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
30 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “proposed change of use from C4 6 bed HMO to [name] 7 bed HMO”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of adjacent occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance; and • conditions of highway safety with regard to parking provision.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety and the living conditions of nearby occupants by way of parking. I therefore find conflict with [name] 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies; and Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). These policies, amongst other things, aim to ensure development addresses its transport impacts, is acceptable in terms of highway safety, and provides adequate vehicular parking. I further find inconsistency with the Framework where it seeks to promote sustainable transport and highway safety.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4