Kirklees Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Kirklees?
See how selected Kirklees examples treated access visibility, pedestrian safety and parking in highway-safety findings.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 160
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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: Kirklees LPA (53.635607, −1.748179). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Kirklees Council appeal findings
Kirklees access visibility and parking evidence
The matched local set has no allowed comparator. Appeal 49075 is an edge case: it found no highway harm but was dismissed on other issues. Its extract gives no underlying analysis.
Counted against appeals
Where access visibility created danger
Blind dropped-kerb crossings
Restricted visibility made conflict between vehicles and pedestrians crossing the dropped kerb foreseeable, even on a no-through road.
Safe access for every user
The Inspector concluded that access visibility had an unacceptable effect on highway safety and did not meet the safe-access requirement.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Kirklees highway example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Safe traffic flow after parking loss
The Inspector concluded that lost off-street parking would not harm highway safety and traffic could still flow safely and efficiently. The extract does not show the evidence behind that conclusion.
Highway safety did not decide it
The conclusion found no harm to highway safety or parking, but dismissed the appeal for character and living-condition harm. It does not reveal the highway analysis.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify the exact sightline affected at your access?
- Can drivers and pedestrians see each other across your dropped kerb?
- Does your evidence show safe, efficient traffic flow after parking changes?
The selected examples are all dismissed, and conclusion-only extracts do not supply the missing highway analysis. 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
5 examples
31 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as single storey front extension, two storey side extension, single storey rear extension with balcony above, partial dropped kerb and new fence to the rear and part road side of the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; and, • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety having particular regard to visibility.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given this restriction in visibility, conflict between vehicles and pedestrians passing across the dropped kerb is foreseeable, to the detriment of pedestrian safety. [name] acknowledge that Green Avenue is a no-through road serving a limited number of properties, the potential for a collision would nevertheless remain. I am therefore not satisfied that the proposal would provide safe and suitable access and consider that it would be likely to harm highway safety having particular regard to visibility. It would thus conflict with Policy LP21 of the LP, which seeks to ensure development avoids detrimental impacts on highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
19 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘a fence has been erected on the boundary walls on either side of my property measuring no higher than 6 feet.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the building and the area; and (ii) highway safety, with regard to access visibility.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the development has an unacceptable effect on highway safety, with regard to access visibility. Hence, it does not comply with Policy LP21 of the Local Plan where it sets out that proposals shall demonstrate they can accommodate sustainable modes of transport and be accessed effectively and safely by all users; that new development will normally be permitted where safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and ensuring the safe and efficient flow of traffic within the development and on the surrounding highway network, amidst other considerations.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
5 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing shed and erection of replacement single storey front extension (within a conservation area).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the extension on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the wider streetscene, the Golcar Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed buildings; • the living conditions of the neighbours at No.21 [name], with regards overlooking and privacy; and • parking provision and highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Notwithstanding my conclusion regarding the absence of harm to highway safety and parking, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the extension causes significant harm to both character and appearance, and living conditions. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
27 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
new double garage to front, single storey rear extension, loft conversion inclusive of dormers to front and rear and internal remodel.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are therefore, the effect of the proposed development upon i) the character and appearance of the area, ii) the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular regard to privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight, and iii) highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision and bin storage.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposed rear dormer and single storey extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and the proposed garage would not be harmful in terms of highway safety or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, this lack of harm is neutral in the planning balance. It does not therefore outweigh my findings in respect of the effect of the proposed front dormer and garage in relation to the character and appearance of the area, and the single storey rear extension in respect of the living conditions of the occupants of No 198 with regard to sunlight and daylight. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, and all other considerations, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 36 · Source page 6
22 September 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host building and the area, including the Birkby Conservation Area (CA); • the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] and No.[address], with particular regard to outlook, daylight, sunlight, and outdoor space at No. [site address] ; and • whether the proposal would be harmful to highway safety, with particular regard to off-street parking.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the appeal proposal would not be harmful to highway safety, with particular regard to the loss of off-street parking. However, there would be a conflict with Policies LP21 and LP22 of the Local Plan, and the SPD insofar as they relate to appropriate parking levels. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of this case, the proposal would fulfil the requirements of these policies in respect of ensuring the safe and efficient flow of traffic within the surrounding area, highway network and highway safety. As such, I am mindful of the guidance within paragraph 11 of the Framework which advises development should only be prevented on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/W/21/3276517
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4