Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Reigate and Banstead?
Use the selected decisions to check access, parking and vehicle-movement points in your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 116
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 5 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: Reigate and Banstead LPA (51.25324, −0.191844). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council appeal findings
Highway safety at gates and driveways
The selected examples include conclusion-only extracts, which limit the detail available about the Inspector's assessment.
Counted against appeals
Vehicles waiting and gates
Waiting vehicles conflicted with road users
The Inspector identified potential conflict between waiting vehicles and other road users as harmful to highway safety.
Front gate compromised highway safety
The Inspector concluded that the remote-controlled front gate would unacceptably compromise highway safety.
Helped or needed
Site circumstances and highways advice
Particular site circumstances
For the front-garden parking bay, the Inspector found highway-safety problems unlikely in that site's particular circumstances.
Highways Authority comments carried weight
The Inspector gave significant weight to County Highways Authority comments when finding no unacceptable highway-safety harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify vehicles waiting or emerging onto the road?
- Which site circumstances does the refusal say make access unsafe?
- What do highways authority comments say about your access or parking?
Several selected extracts provide conclusions without the detailed reasoning that led to 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
16 February 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
to form a double parking bay in the front garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, having regard to the particular circumstances of this site, I find that the proposal would be unlikely to cause highway safety issues. As such, it would accord with Policy TAP1 of the Local Plan and Paragraphs 104 and 111 of the Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure new development avoids unacceptable impact on highway safety and avoids increasing travel by less sustainable modes of transport. In these respects, the proposal would also accord with the broad objectives of the Surrey Local Transport Plan.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
1 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the retention of the existing building and its conversion to an office/studio.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise disturbance; and (ii) highway safety, with particular regard to car parking provision.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, and having regard to the comments made by the County Highways Authority to which I attached significant weight, I conclude on this matter that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety in the area. The proposal therefore accords with [name] EMP3, DES1 and TAP1. The latter states that planning applications will be looked upon favourably unless they would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
18 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a remote control front lightweight see through metal gate.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • Highway safety particularly vehicles emerging from [address]; and • The character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As a result, the proposed development would unacceptably compromise highway safety and would fail to accord with the relevant provisions of Policy TAP1 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan 2019 (“the DMP”) and the National Planning Policy Framework. These look to, amongst other things, ensure that development would not be detrimental to the safety of the transport network.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
14 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as installation of a sliding gate (including brick piers and driveway mirrors) at [site address] , along with laurel hedges in order to provide privacy, beautify and reduce emissions (through carbon capture from the hedges).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the [address] historic park and garden of local interest (the parkland) and whether the setting of the grade II Listed Angel public house (the LB) would be preserved; and • The effect of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to the potential for conflict between vehicles waiting to access the appeal site and other road users.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, the proposal would cause harm to highway safety, with particular regard to the potential for conflict between vehicles waiting to access the appeal site and other road users. It therefore conflicts with Policy TAP1 of the DMP which, amongst other criteria, requires development not to unnecessarily impede the free flow of traffic on the public highway, or compromise pedestrians or any other transport mode.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
27 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of hedge and fixed gate at the front of the property surrounding the driveway entrance. Installation of fence and double swing gates around the perimeter of the existing driveway, with the gates opening inwards towards the house. Relay the driveway apron with cobblestone sets.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposed development would not be harmful to highway safety. Therefore, in this respect, it would be in accordance with Policy TAP1 of the DMP which seeks a highway design and layout that provides adequate, safe and convenient access for all road users. Nor would it conflict with the advice in Surrey Transport Plan (April 2018) which seeks to improve road safety, amongst other things.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2