Rushcliffe Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Rushcliffe?
See the access, parking and reversing evidence local inspectors accepted or found unsafe.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 49
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 8 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: Rushcliffe LPA (52.900878, −1.037531). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rushcliffe Borough Council appeal findings
Driveway width, parking and forward exit
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set; appeal 86893 also covers character and living conditions, while 86034 gives only a conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Narrow driveways and unsafe access
Driveway width increased reversing risk
In appeal 85726, limited driveway width increased the likelihood of an accident when large vehicles reversed, with a likely significant effect on neighbouring properties.
Access and parking were unsafe
The conclusion in appeal 86034 is that the proposal’s access and parking would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Helped or needed
Parking and forward exit that helped
Parking court could still function
In appeal 72596, tandem parking ahead of the garage left enough parking-court circulation and a forward exit.
On-street space absorbed displacement
Appeal 72596 found that minimal use of on-street parking meant a displaced vehicle could be accommodated without added demand.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific access or parking hazard?
- Can vehicles park without blocking circulation or a forward exit?
- Would large vehicles need to reverse through a narrow access?
The packet does not show full access layouts, vehicle tracking or the reasons each dismissed appeal failed. 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
8 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the Application Form as ‘To convert a single- storey attached garage into an inhabited room (snug room) leaving the front of the garage as storage space.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I note discussion in the Council’s Officer Report around the loss of vehicle space resulting in obstruction of footways, however it is unclear which footways would be obstructed that would interfere with highway safety. I agree that it would be possible to park two vehicles in tandem in front of the garage without detrimentally affecting the circulation space of the parking court area and allowing vehicles utilising the parking court to manoeuvre and exit in a forward direction which would also be in conformity with the [name]. Given the minimal use of on-street parking along [address], the addition of 1 displaced vehicle can be easily accommodated and not lead to on-street parking demands.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
1 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extension to create new third floor comprising eight no. one bedroom apartments.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues for Appeal A are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, also having regard to the Keyworth Conservation Area, the Church of [name] ([name] listed building) and the Hall (a non-designated heritage asset); • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 26 and No 27 Woodleigh with particular regard to outdoor space; and • The effect of the proposal on the highway safety of the area with particular regard to car parking.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal will not cause harm to highway safety with particular regard to parking. While there would be conflict with Policy 1 of the Local Plan in that parking has not been provided in accordance with advice provided by the Highway Authority, a means of access is provided that does not cause harm to highway safety or amenity. In addition I am satisfied that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety as a result of the reduced level of car parking in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
Paragraph 28 · Source pages 5, 6
17 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘proposed single dwelling with parking’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties Nos 2 and [address] (Nos 2 and 4); • Whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for the future occupiers; • The effect of the proposal on highway safety; and • Whether the proposal would make adequate provision for biodiversity net gain (BNG).
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I find that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The development would therefore conflict with LP P2 Policies 1 and 11, which collectively require developments to provide a suitable means of access and parking without detriment to highway safety. It also conflicts with the aims of the Framework, which at paragraphs 115 and 116 states that safe and suitable access to the site should be achieved for all users and that developments should be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 22 · Source pages 4, 5
11 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of new detached dwelling with associated hard and soft landscaping and air source heat pump.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and, • whether the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of private external amenity space.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The driveway would only serve one dwelling and the forecasted amount of vehicle movements is modest. However, due to the limited width of the driveway, there would be an increased likelihood that large vehicles reversing along this section of the driveway would have an accident. As the side elevations of Nos 3 and 4 form the side boundaries of the access, any accident is likely to have a significant effect on neighbouring properties. Consequently, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and should be refused in accordance with paragraph 116 of the Framework.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
20 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side and rear extension, to include new cladding and render.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of [address] and [address], and whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Edwalton Conservation Area, • the effect of the development on the living conditions of future occupiers, with regard to garden size, and • the effect of the proposed parking provision on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would provide sufficient parking provision. The proposal therefore accords with Policy 1 of the LP and the Framework. Collectively, these policies and guidance document require parking to be provided in accordance with advice provided by the Highways Authority and avoid unacceptable impacts on highway safety.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4