Middlesbrough Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Middlesbrough?
See which highway-safety concerns appeared in selected local appeals and what measures or evidence their decisions mentioned.
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 75
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- 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: Middlesbrough LPA (54.542497, −1.222454). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Middlesbrough Borough Council appeal findings
Middlesbrough highway-safety evidence: bollards and harm
The selected examples have a higher allowed share than the matched local set. Dismissed appeal 64092 found no highway-safety harm, but its extract gives no reason for dismissal.
Counted against appeals
Middlesbrough highway works and garage concerns
Highway-works condition was necessary
The Inspector found the required highway-works condition reasonable and necessary for highway safety.
Garage caused unacceptable highway-safety harm
The Inspector concluded that the detached garage would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Helped or needed
Middlesbrough bollards and no-harm findings
Additional bollards avoided highway harm
For the store access, the Inspector found no highway-safety harm subject to additional bollards being installed.
Illuminated unit: no-harm conclusion
The extract concludes there would be no unacceptable highway-safety harm, but does not set out the assessment behind that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice require highway works or a safety condition?
- Could bollards or another physical measure address the stated risk?
- Does the notice identify highway harm separately from any other refusal reason?
Appeal 64092 is a dismissed multi-issue case whose displayed extract finds no highway-safety harm, so it cannot explain the dismissal. 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
2 examples
20 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
tarmac on access area at front of store (retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development upon: - highway safety, and; - the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall therefore, subject to the installation of additional bollards, the development would not be harmful to highway safety. It is in accordance with [name] (‘MCS’) Policy DC1(d) which states that all development proposals should ensure that there is no impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
24 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Installation of 1No. internally illuminated [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit.
Issue identified by the Inspector
It is considered that the main issues for Appeal A are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and • Whether the proposed development would undermine the safe environment.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm highway safety. It would therefore accord with Policy DC1 of the [name], 2008 (CS) and Policies CR2 and IN7 of the PLP. Such policies amongst other matters, explain that proposals for telecommunications and digital infrastructure will be supported where: existing carriageways, footpaths and cycleways are retained for the free flow of users, including during periods of maintenance, and that equipment is sited so that it does not unduly affect visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. They also require equipment to be positioned to avoid negative impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 19 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
20 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey extension and conversion of garage to side.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Drawing the above together, I conclude that Condition 4 regarding a scheme of highway works is reasonable and necessary in the interests of highway safety. [name] therefore meets the safe design and highway safety requirements of Policies CS5 and DC1 of the [name] 2008. The condition also complies with the design and highway safety considerations of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
6 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether the proposed development would be acceptable having regard to: • the character and appearance of the area, including whether the character or appearance of the CA would be preserved or enhanced; and • highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would conflict with Policy DC1 of the CS. In respect of this issue, this policy seeks to ensure development does not impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 23 · Source page 4
5 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary I conclude that the proposal would not be harmful highway safety. The proposal would therefore accord with Local Plan Policy DC1, where it seeks to ensure no impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3