Isle of Wight Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Isle of Wight?
This review helps you compare highway-safety evidence in the selected Isle of Wight 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
- 6 of 60
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- 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: Isle of Wight LPA (50.675749, −1.296562). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Isle of Wight Council appeal findings
Isle of Wight access: turning and junction safety
Some extracts give only conclusions, and the selected examples omit a dismissed case from the matched local set, so their outcome mix differs.
Counted against appeals
Turning and access concerns
No space to turn
The absence of a turning space led the Inspector to conclude that the proposal would harm highway safety.
Visibility improvement fell short
Better visibility from the hardstanding had limited weight and did not make the proposed access acceptable for highway safety.
Personal benefits did not outweigh harm
Claimed access rights, personal circumstances and an electric-vehicle charging point did not outweigh identified highway-safety harm.
Helped or needed
Junction safety in allowed example
Junction proximity not dangerous
The Inspector was not persuaded that the site's proximity to a junction would endanger pedestrians or highway users.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify missing on-site turning space?
- Does it explain why visibility would still be inadequate?
- Does it identify risk near a junction?
The allowed Isle of Wight extract gives the conclusion, not the earlier supporting analysis. 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
1 example
24 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the “demolition of porch and existing first floor bathroom extension, construction of single and double storey rear extension, formation of new vehicle access from highway”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Therefore, with the above in mind, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
With all the above factors in mind, I am not persuaded that the position of the appeal site in close proximity to the junction of [address] and [address] would result in a danger to pedestrian safety and highway uses such that it would warrant withholding permission for the appeal proposal. Thus, the development would not result in harm to highway safety. It would not be in conflict with Policy DM2 of the Isle of [name] 2012 which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that developments provide an accessible and safe built environment.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
31 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
formation of vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Appellant also contends that they benefit from prescriptive rights to access and park motorcycles on their frontage. However, that is not the proposal that is before me and the existence or not of such rights is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal that seeks planning permission for a new vehicular access submitted under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Planning Act). Even so, it remains open to the Appellant to apply under section 191 of the Planning Act to establish the lawfulness or otherwise of the access/parking for motorcycles and the determination of that application would not be affected by my decision on this appeal. As a consequence, neither the alleged existence of such rights nor any personal circumstances or the potential benefit of providing a charging point for an electric vehicle, outweigh the significant harm that I have identified to highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
23 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the formation of vehicular access and hardstanding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Together and amongst other things policies DM11 & SP7 of the Island Plan [site address] [name] (2012) (CS), expect proposals to provide functional, accessible, safe and adaptable built environments and that they should not negatively impact on the strategic road network. Paragraph 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework), states that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
18 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of a wall and the creation of new off street parking and associated vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is concluded that because of the absence of a turning space within the site, the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety. The development would therefore conflict with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan [site address] [name] (including Waste and Minerals) and Development Management Development Plan Document, March 2012, which among other things, expects development proposals to provide a safe environment.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
23 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘I am applying for a dropped kerb for vehicle access which is approximately 10 kerb stones. A small section of my wall which runs along the front of my property would also be removed for the vehicle access. The areas are indicated on my property photo as references 1 and 2.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide safe and suitable access, with particular regard to highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I recognise that the proposed development would improve visibility compared to the existing visibility available from the hardstanding area on the site. However, for the above reasons, this attracts limited weight and does not indicate that the appeal proposal is acceptable in relation to highway safety. The presence of other substandard parking situations in the locality also neither leads me to a different conclusion nor indicates that the highway safety issues arising from the appeal proposal would be acceptable.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2