Manchester City Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Manchester?
Learn which pedestrian and driver-safety facts the selected examples examined.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 13 of 99
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 13
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 1
- of 13 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: Manchester LPA (53.451554, −2.232473). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Manchester City Council appeal findings
Manchester kiosks: pedestrian movement and visibility
The matched local set has no dismissed appeal, so the selected examples show allowed reasoning only.
No dismissed example matched
No dismissed local example
This snapshot has no dismissed local example for this issue.
Helped or needed
What helped kiosk proposals
No specific safety evidence
The Council raised no specific driver-visibility, distraction or safety risk, and no substantive evidence linked the existing kiosk to highway safety problems.
Pedestrianised siting avoided driver harm
In a pedestrianised area, reduced driver visibility would cause no harm. No safety risk was demonstrated.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific driver-visibility, distraction or safety risk?
- Would pedestrians’ movement be changed at the proposed site?
- Is the proposal beside moving traffic or in a pedestrianised area?
Appeal 90325’s extract mainly addresses character and pedestrian experience, not a direct highway-safety finding. 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.
Allowed appeal examples
5 examples
12 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the removal of an existing [name] and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit. Appeal B Ref: 6004715 [site address] , Outside 48, Manchester [postcode]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues for Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on the: • on the character and appearance of the local area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Furthermore, the site is located in between tall, mature trees, and alongside tall buildings. Therefore, even accounting for the modest increase in size, it would not be unduly prominent within the street scene and would not detract from the quality of the public realm or make this busy pedestrian route a less pleasing place to walk. Therefore, by virtue of its siting and marginal increase in footprint, I find that it would not increase the impression of street clutter in this location and would not cause harm to the quality of the pedestrian experience. Consequently, I find that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
12 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit. Appeal B Ref: 6004070 [site address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues for Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the setting of a nearby listed building; • and highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian safety and movement.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I have had regard to third party concerns regarding the siting of kiosks on the side of roads and the highlighted appeal decision3. However, it would be positioned in a similar position to the existing unit and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the existing unit has caused highway safety concerns for these reasons. Furthermore, the Council has not raised any specific concerns in relation to driver visibility, distraction or safety risks and based on the evidence before I see no reason to reach an alternative conclusion. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to these concerns there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposals pose a risk to highway safety, such that it would warrant dismissal of the appeal scheme.
Paragraph 32 · Source page 6
11 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit. Appeal B Ref: 6003963 [site address] , [site address] , Manchester [postcode]
Issue identified by the Inspector
In respect of Appeal A, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development: • on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • on highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposal would not harm highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies SP1, CC5, T1 and DM1 of the CS, Saved Policy DC22 of the UDP and [name]-P1 and JP-C4 of the PfE Plan. Together, these policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is safe and easy to move around; has regard to road and community safety; and would not be injurious to public safety.
Paragraph 35 · Source page 6
11 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit. Appeal B Ref: 6003891 [site address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues for Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the local area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings; and • highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, in respect of Appeal A I conclude that the proposal would not harm highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement and safety. Therefore, I find no conflict with Policies SP1, CC5, T1 and DM1 of the CS, Saved Policy DC22 of the UDP and [name]-P1 and JP-C4 of the PfE Plan. Together, these policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is 6 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/H/24/3350920 Appeal Decisions 6003894 and 6003891 safe and easy to move around; has regard to road and community safety; and would not be injurious to public safety.
Paragraph 36 · Source pages 6, 7
11 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the removal of an existing [name], and the deployment of a replacement [name] 3 unit. Appeal B Ref: 6003876 [site address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues for Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area; and • highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I have had regard to third party concerns regarding the siting of kiosks on the side of roads and the highlighted appeal decision2. However, the proposal would be located in a pedestrianised area, as such there would be no harm associated with any reduction in visibility for drivers. Furthermore, the Council has not raised any specific concerns in relation to driver visibility, distraction or safety risks and based on the evidence before I see no reason to reach an alternative conclusion. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to these concerns there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposals pose a risk to highway safety, such that it would warrant dismissal of the appeal scheme.
Paragraph 34 · Source page 6