North Yorkshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in North Yorkshire?
See why parking, traffic flow and access visibility mattered in selected North Yorkshire highway safety appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 107
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 7 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: North Yorkshire LPA (54.133745, −1.351605). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
North Yorkshire Council appeal findings
Parking displacement and junction visibility in North Yorkshire
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, with fewer allowed decisions, so the allowed comparison is limited.
Counted against appeals
Parking displacement and access visibility
Parking moved onto highway
The charger scheme would displace parked vehicles onto the highway, affecting traffic flow and creating conflict with cyclists and pedestrians.
Fence reduced junction visibility
The Inspector found sufficient visibility unlikely because of the fence height, narrow footpath and nearby junction. Leaving drivers would need to creep over the footpath and could conflict with pedestrians.
Helped or needed
Small driveway changes and road impact
Small scale limited road-network effects
For the reconfigured driveway, small scale meant the Inspector did not find road-network effects severe.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal show where displaced parking would go?
- Does it say drivers need to creep over a footpath?
- Does it explain why road-network effects would be severe?
Some selected dismissals give only a conclusion, while another also covers character and appearance, so only its access-visibility reasoning is used. 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
31 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the ‘reconfiguration of existing driveway and associated landscaping.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in relation to this appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 116 of the Framework is clear that development should only be refused on highway safety grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Given the small scale of the proposed development, the implications for the road network would not be severe.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
29 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
siting of 1.no rapid electric vehicle charger together with ancillary electrical equipment to serve 2.no EV charging bays. Installation of a pay and display unit.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with particular regard to car parking, the free flow of traffic and traffic movements.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In view of all the above, I conclude that the change in character of this well-used, unrestricted and informal parking area, and the resultant displacement of parked vehicles onto the highway, would have a harmful impact upon car parking; would affect the free flow of traffic; and create conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. The appeal proposal would therefore be to the detriment of highway safety in this area and be contrary to Policy TI3 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2025 (2020), where it seeks, amongst other things, to ensure proposals provide safe and convenient parking at appropriate levels. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraphs 116 and 117 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), where they state that development should be refused if there would be an unnacceptable harm on highway safety and that development should create safe places which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
26 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “currently we have planning permission granted for a car boot change of use (Application 18/00873/FUL) refers. This permission was granted in 2018. Since that time the car boot has grown in popularity and there is a now a need to expand the footprint of the car boot to allow more parking for visitors to the area. The request is for the adjoining field to be granted planning for exactly the same proposal as the above application. In doing so this may alleviate any issues for vehicles entering and leaving the event as there would be increased capacity for parking for people who are attending.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I consider the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policy IC2 of the Hambleton Local Plan (adopted February 2022) which seeks to ensure developments would not compromise highway safety.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
25 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘application for a 1.[address] board timber fence with metal/composite gate with open railings to top half’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the area; and ii) highway safety
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In relation to highway safety, the primary concern is related to the point of access, to, and from the property. Due to the height of the boundary treatment, the width of the footpath, and the site’s close proximity to the junction, it appears unlikely that sufficient visibility would remain. Consequently, vehicles exiting the property would need to creep over the footpath in order to gain sufficient views of cars travelling along [address], which could lead to conflict with pedestrians. The appellant has highlighted the presence of hedges to neighbouring properties’ frontages which are of a similar height to the proposal. However, notwithstanding that each case is determined on its own merits, the presence of existing accesses with poor visibility does not justify further unsuitable accesses.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
8 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: to drop kerb on [address] allowing access to front of property to park vehicle.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having considered all the evidence, including the recommendations of the highway authority and observations made during my site visit, I conclude that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable effect on highway safety. In this regard, it would conflict with paragraphs 115(b) and 116 of the Framework.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3