Leeds City Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Leeds?
See which driveway, visibility and parking facts appear in selected Leeds highway-safety decisions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 32 of 500
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 25
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 33 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: Leeds LPA (53.825783, −1.50603). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Leeds City Council appeal findings
Leeds highway safety: fences, driveways, parking
The displayed outcome mix differs from the matched local set, and the takeaway case is an edge-of-scope example.
Counted against appeals
Parking shortfalls and fence safety concerns
Boundary fence: harmful conclusion
For the boundary wall and fence, the inspector concluded that the effect on highway safety was unacceptable. The extract gives no further analysis.
Inadequate parking provision
The side extension was found harmful because parking provision was inadequate. The inspector linked off-street spaces with avoiding highway congestion from on-street parking.
Takeaway: harmful conclusion
For the takeaway proposal, the inspector concluded that its highway-safety impact was unacceptable. The extract does not identify the deciding facts.
Helped or needed
Rear fence and driveway visibility
No visibility gain from removal
The hedge sat between the fence and driveway, so removing the fence would not improve visibility for vehicles leaving the driveway.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify a blocked sight line from the driveway?
- Would moving or removing the proposal improve drivers’ visibility?
- Is there enough off-street parking to avoid on-street congestion?
The boundary-fence and takeaway extracts state conclusions without their underlying 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
30 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a new fence to rear and side.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effects of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The hedge sits between the appeal fence and the driveway. The presence of the fence therefore has no material impact on views from the driveway. Accordingly, visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway would not improve were the appeal dismissed and the fence subsequently removed. The development therefore does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 14 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
19 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as retrospective application for new boundary wall and fence. Existing hedges removed.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the development has an unacceptable effect on highway safety. It therefore conflicts with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) and Saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) insofar as they require, amongst other things, for developments to provide good design and maximise highway safety. It is also contrary to the public safety aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
17 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
side extension to dwellinghouse.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on parking and highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on highway safety by reason of inadequate parking provision. This would be contrary to Policy T2 of the [name] 2014 (as amended by the [name] 2019) insofar as it relates to parking provision. The Council has also referenced its Supplementary Planning Document ‘[name] 2012. I have afforded some weight to that document due to its adopted status and role in supporting the relevant development plan policies, and I find conflict with its requirements that there should normally be provision for two off-street car parking spaces within a site in order to prevent congestion of the highway from on-street car parking.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
24 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the change of use of land of domestic land to the front of a dwelling (C3) to a hot food takeaway ([name]) through the siting and use of a mobile catering van.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the health and wellbeing of the local community, • the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance, outlook and odour, • the character and appearance of the area; and, • on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety, and as such, would be contrary to Policies P10 and T2 of the [name], UDP Policy GP5, paragraph 116 of the Framework and the Leeds City Council Transport Supplementary Planning Document, which seek, amongst other matters, to ensure development provides parking provision and safe and secure access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with impaired mobility.
Paragraph 20 · Source pages 3, 4
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
23 June 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
front & side single storey extension and rear outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed single storey front extension on: i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and ii) highway safety, in terms of parking.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I acknowledge that interested parties raised concerns regarding on-street parking availability on Sherwood Green. However, although I appreciate that my site visit was a snapshot in time, there was plenty of on-street parking available when I visited the site. Furthermore, many of the properties in the street have driveways which are likely to cater for the parking demand in the area. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest otherwise. With these factors in mind and considering that the front extension would only result in the loss of one parking space, the loss of the driveway would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, by virtue of any additional parking demand it would create.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3