Peterborough City Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Peterborough?
See what the selected examples say was missing on access and parking.
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 53
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 2
- 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: Peterborough LPA (52.608542, −0.253077). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Peterborough City Council appeal findings
Peterborough access and parking evidence
There is no allowed local comparator: the selected examples are all dismissed and cover different types of development.
Counted against appeals
Unproven access and parking safety
Safe access was not shown
Safe, convenient access was not demonstrated, and the Inspector identified a collision risk.
Existing access remained unacceptable
The existing access arrangement was not shown to avoid an unacceptable effect on highway safety.
Parking lacked reassurance
Missing parking lacked evidence that it would avoid severe highway-safety impacts.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Show access can work safely
The dismissed access examples show that safe, convenient entry and exit still needed to be demonstrated.
Address the current access layout
The storage-use example shows the need to demonstrate that the existing access arrangement is acceptable.
Support any parking shortfall
The HMO example shows that a parking shortfall needed evidence that it would not create severe highway-safety impacts.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a safe, convenient access problem?
- Have you shown how vehicles enter and leave safely?
- If parking is short, what evidence addresses highway safety?
No allowed appeal is in the matched local set, so these examples only show dismissed reasoning. 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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
15 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Material change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 2 gypsy/traveller households, each household with two caravans including no more than one static caravan/mobile home. The proposals also include the laying of hard-standing, the erection of a communal dayroom and the provision of a stable building”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether safe and convenient access facilities can be provided and if not, the effect on highway safety; • Whether there would be any unacceptable risk to occupiers of the development given the nearby [name] and whether the development would have any adverse effect on the Pipeline; • Whether sufficient information has been submitted regarding biodiversity net gain (BNG) and whether there would be an adverse effect on the natural environment; • If there is harm, whether this would be outweighed by other material considerations including the need for the development and the personal circumstances of the appellant and other occupiers of the development.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Having considered all of the submitted evidence, including oral evidence at the hearing and from my observations on site, I consider that it has not been demonstrated that safe and convenient access facilities can be provided to/from the appeal site. In the absence of this, the development would be likely to increase the risk of collision between users of the access and other drivers on [site address] and would have a materially harmful effect on highway safety. I attach substantial weight to this harm.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
15 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
material change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for 4 Gypsy/Traveller families, each with two caravans including no more than one static caravan/mobile home, together with retention of existing building for use as ancillary dayroom and laying of hardstanding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether safe and convenient access facilities can be provided and if not, the effect on highway safety; • Whether there would be any unacceptable risk to occupiers of the development given the nearby [name] and whether the development would have any adverse effect on the Pipeline; • If there is harm, whether this would be outweighed by other material considerations including the need for the development and the personal circumstances of the appellant and other occupiers of the development.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Having considered all of the submitted evidence, including oral evidence at the hearing and from my observations on site, I consider that it has not been demonstrated that safe and convenient access facilities can be provided to/from the appeal site. In the absence of this, the development would be likely to increase the risk of collision between users of the access and other drivers on [site address] and would have a materially harmful effect on highway safety. I attach substantial weight to this harm.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
10 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘retrospective application for the change of use of paddock/garden to storage of motor vehicles in association with the adjacent car sales use’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether or not the appeal site is a suitable location for the development, with particular reference to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside; • the effect on the existing access arrangement with particular reference to highway safety; and • whether or not the development meets mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development does not result in an unacceptable effect on the existing access arrangement and upon highway safety. In this regard, the development conflicts with Policy LP13 of the LP which requires appropriate provision to be made for safe access to, from and within the site by all users. This aligns with paragraph 116 of the Framework which requires development to be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
30 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use from existing Bank (Class E) to community church and place of worship (Class F1).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on highway safety, with particular regard to access arrangements and parking provision; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) refers to a severe threshold in relation to residual cumulative impacts on the road network, it also directs refusal for development if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Given my conclusions above, I have therefore also identified conflict with the Framework.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
16 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Change of use from C3 (residential) to C4 (HMO for up to 6 people).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the development on highway safety with regard to the availability of on-street parking.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I conclude that the lack of provision of parking associated with the development will be harmful to highway safety and is therefore contrary to Policy 13 of the LP. No evidence has been put forward which provides sufficient reassurance that there are no severe impacts on highway safety in light of the failure to meet the parking standards set out in the LP.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2