London Borough of Redbridge appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Redbridge?
See the selected examples on dropped kerbs, pavement safety and parking access.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 25 of 268
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 21
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 23
- of 25 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: Redbridge LPA (51.585659, 0.07589). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Redbridge appeal findings
Dropped kerbs, pavements and parking access in Redbridge
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, with more allowed decisions.
Counted against appeals
Wider kerbs and parking access
Wider kerbs reduced pavement refuge
A much wider dropped kerb was found to reduce pavement space that gave pedestrians refuge from manoeuvring cars.
Street clutter affected visibility
Trees, a bus stop and on-road parking distracted road users and affected visibility in a busy pedestrian area.
Safety harm stated without details
The Inspector concluded the scheme would cause significant highway-safety harm, but the displayed extract gives no supporting analysis.
Helped or needed
Allowed safety conclusions
Highway access found safe
The Inspector concluded that the proposed access would not harm highway safety.
Wider kerb found safe
The Inspector concluded the wider dropped kerb would not harm pedestrian or highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify pavement space lost to vehicle manoeuvres?
- Are trees, parking or a bus stop affecting visibility?
- Does the scheme show safe, convenient access to parking?
The allowed extracts give safety conclusions, not the access details behind them. 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
1 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Formation of means of access to a highway’.
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 reasons set out above, I find that the proposed access to the highway would not be harmful to highway safety. The development would not conflict with Policies D3 or T2 of the London Plan (2021), which amongst other matters, seeks to increase walking, reduce car dominance, and to improve street safety, comfort, convenience and amenity.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
30 December 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
increase width of existing dropped kerb to allow for light vehicles to be parked on the front curtilage of the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on pedestrian and highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm pedestrian or highway safety and would not therefore conflict with the aims of Policy LP22 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) and Policy T2 of the London Plan (2021) which seek to reduce road danger and provide safe, convenient, and accessible footpath networks.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
30 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extension of means of access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would result in a much wider dropped kerb, enabling cars to enter or leave the appeal property and cross the pavement over a much wider area. I find that this would result in considerable conflict with pedestrians. It would severely reduce the area of pavement providing for a sense of safety and refuge from cars manoeuvring across the pavement. 10.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated by the nearby presence of street trees, the bus stop and on-road parking, which serve as distractions to and impact on visibility for, road-users in what is a busy pedestrian area. 11.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would result in harm to highway safety contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy T6 and to Local Plan1 Policy LP22, which together amongst other things, seek to ensure safe access.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
21 March 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the formation of means of access and alterations to front garden to create driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · 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 Policies T2 and T4 of The London Plan which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development proposals should not increase road danger.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
29 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the formation of a means of access to a highway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would impact highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I acknowledge that the general layout reflects the details shown in the diagram extract from the Guidance Notes for Applying to have [name] ([name]) [name] ([name]). However, the extent of the crossover is not the same, and the highway authority advises that an 8m wide crossover shared with the neighbouring property would be required to provide adequate space. The response does not indicate that entry and exit in a forward gear is necessary, and turning on site is not part of the parking arrangements for other properties along the road. Nevertheless, from the information before me, the proposal would fail to provide adequate or convenient access to the proposed parking without potentially prejudicing highway safety and, in particular, would fail to protect pedestrians from potential hazards.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2