Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Oldham Metropolitan?
Learn which driveway-access facts caused safety concerns and how little detail the allowed side-extension decision provides.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 78
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 10 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: Oldham LPA (53.555207, −2.077035). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Oldham driveway access and highway safety
The selected examples are less dismissal-heavy than the matched local set, and the allowed extract gives only a final safety conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Driveway access that looked unsafe
No room to turn
The site lacked a turning area, leaving vehicles to reverse with limited visibility past parked cars and sometimes buses, creating danger for pedestrians and road users.
Access on the A663
The inspector concluded that a new front-garden access would harm highway safety on the A663, Broadway.
Crossing harm without detail
The extract concludes that retaining the driveway and adding a vehicle crossing would significantly harm highway safety, without setting out the reasons.
Helped or needed
What the allowed extension shows
No unacceptable impact found
For a single-storey side extension, the inspector concluded there would be no unacceptable impact on highway users’ safety. The extract does not say why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify inadequate on-site turning space?
- Does it describe reversing with limited visibility past parked vehicles or buses?
- Does it identify danger to pedestrians or other road users?
Appeal 74576 sits at the edge of this issue: its side extension also raised character and living-condition concerns. 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
7 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety as a result of the loss of parking provision.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not cause an unacceptable impact on the safety of highway users. Therefore the proposal would comply with Policies 5 and 9 of the Oldham Development Plan Documents Joint [name] and Development Management Policies (adopted 2011) which requires development proposals to have regard to appropriate highway safety measures to ensure the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users and for development not to harm the safety of road users.
Paragraph 8 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
2 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
retention of driveway and proposed light duty vehicle crossing.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I find that there would be significant harm to highway safety and as such the proposal would be contrary to Policy 9 of the Oldham Local Plan (2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development proposals should not harm the safety of road users and ensure the provision of safe access.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to remove the front garden and replace with a driveway to be able to park cars on.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Although the proposal would result in an opening in the parallel parking lane, any improvement in visibility would be outweighed by the fact that the site is not large enough to provide a turning area and vehicles would have to reverse into or out of the drive at [address] with limited visibility around parked cars and sometimes around buses. That would be significantly more difficult than the existing situation in which vehicles have to manoeuvre in and out of the parallel lanes. The proposed access would exacerbate this unacceptably and would result in a significant danger to the safety of highway users including pedestrians. Given the similarity of the other properties in this terrace, it is would also be likely to result in a precedent that would make it difficult for the Council to resist further proposals, thereby increasing the level of harm.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
22 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘New vehicular access to front garden, new hardstanding, and landscaping to front garden, new boundary fence. New drop kerb.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety on the A663, Broadway.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude the proposed development would have a harmful effect on highway safety on the A663, Broadway. It would therefore conflict with Policy 9 of the Oldham Development Framework Development Plan Document – [name] and Development Management Policies (2011) and Policy JP-C8 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024), which together require that any development prioritises safe and convenient access, ensures appropriate connectivity to the existing highway network and does not harm the safety of road users. For the same reasons, it would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 116 which confirms that development should be refused where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part single storey/part two storey side extension with balcony.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and area in general; (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers at No. 19 Springwood; and (iii) highway safety
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would harm highway safety. There is conflict with Policy 9 of the [name] which amongst other things seeks to protect pedestrians and road users.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2