Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Kingston upon Thames?
See what the selected examples show about parking, access and road-user conflict.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 14 of 158
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 14 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: Kingston upon Thames LPA (51.387902, −0.286874). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames appeal findings
Parking loss, dropped kerbs and constrained access
Some selected examples are brief. The flats example offers no site-specific highway-safety explanation.
Counted against appeals
Conflict at dropped kerbs and access
Conflict despite low vehicle movements
At the proposed dropped kerb, low speeds and limited movements did not remove the increased chance of conflict with pedestrians and motorists.
Vehicular access found unacceptable
The Inspector concluded that the proposed vehicular access would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. The extract gives no further analysis.
Helped or needed
When parking or access was accepted
One extra car on the street
After garage conversion, the added car could be parked on the street because the network accommodated it and restrictions avoided unsafe conditions.
No evidenced safety history
No substantive evidence showed the existing constrained access had caused significant highway-safety problems, limiting the policy conflict's weight.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify pedestrian or motorist conflict at the proposed access?
- Could an extra parked vehicle safely fit within the surrounding street network?
- Is there substantive evidence that the existing access has caused safety problems?
The flats extract offers no site-specific highway-safety explanation. 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
8 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
‘Conversion of existing garage to habitable space with associated changes to fenestration and installation of 1 no. rooflight. Erection of single storey rear and side extensions’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the road network and highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appeal proposal seeks to convert the attached garage of the appeal site into additional residential accommodation. In doing so, the garage space would no longer be available for parking and a single additional vehicle would therefore be parked on the road. Despite there being localised parking stress, a single additional vehicle could be accommodated within the existing street network and estate, as [address] is not subject to controlled parking. In the vicinity there are the usual parking restrictions at junctions, corners and on the busier main road, which would ensure any additional vehicle parked on the street would not create unsafe conditions for road users and pedestrians. As such, a single additional vehicle would not pose a risk to highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
29 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of industrial building, change of use from industrial use (Use Class E(g)(iii)) to dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) and construction of 3 bedroom dwelling including associated hard and soft landscaping works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on highway safety for the occupiers of the proposed development and the occupiers of 13 and [address]; and • in the event of a policy conflict being identified in respect of the first main issue, whether material considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development is served by a constrained access which would not meet the standard expected under development plan policy. This brings the scheme into conflict with the development plan as a whole. The weight I have given to the conflict with the development plan policy is limited by the fact that although the access is constrained, it is existing and I have not been provided with substantive evidence it has led to significant highway safety issues.
Paragraph 36 · Source page 6
5 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Demolition of existing sunroom and single-storey rear extension, construction of rear dormer with front rooflights, and conversion of single dwelling into two self- contained flats.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers, with particular regard to the layout, internal light, noise, odour and outlook to Flat 1; and the access to rear amenity space and internal floor to ceiling heights within Flat 2; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety for all road users, with particular regard to the proposed off-street car parking arrangement.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
It would also accord with paragraph 116 of the Framework which outlines that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
7 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the ‘formation of new dropped kerb in conjunction with the part demolition of a front boundary wall and the construction of a new off road parking facility’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I accept that vehicle speeds are relatively low, and that movements to and from the appeal site via the proposed access would be limited. However, the proposal would still increase the probabilty of conflict with pedestrians and motorists to an unacceptable degree, resulting in an adverse impact on highway safety. There would be conflict with Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Core Strategy Local Development Framework Royal Borough of [name] (2012) and Section 2e of the Kingston and Sutton Shared Environmental Service Vehicular Crossover Policy and Application Pack (2020) which when read together, broadly require new development not to compromise highway safety and for new vehicular crossovers to not be within 10 metres of a bus stop.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
12 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed vehicular access on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On balance therefore and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. This would conflict with paragraph l of Policy DM10 in [name] 2012 and with paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021. The Notice of Refusal also refers to the former’s Policy DM8, but as the grounds of appeal point out, this is only of very limited relevance.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2