South Gloucestershire Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in South Gloucestershire?
See how dropped-kerb comparisons and parking were treated in the selected examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 151
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 12 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: South Gloucestershire LPA (51.546888, −2.470647). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Gloucestershire Council appeal findings
Dropped kerbs and parking in South Gloucestershire
The allowed example deals with Green Belt rather than highway safety, so it gives no allowed highway-safety comparator. The selected examples have a different balance of outcomes from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
South Gloucestershire access and parking concerns
Wider front gardens were different
The Inspector said cited dropped-kerb sites had wider, deeper front gardens and appeared to meet the Council’s policy, so they did not justify this access.
Parking was found unacceptable
The Inspector concluded the proposal was unacceptable on highway-safety grounds relating to parking. The cited passage does not give the layout assessment.
Helped or needed
Parking findings without an allowed comparator
Sufficient parking could reduce harm
In a dismissed appeal, the Inspector concluded that the proposal could provide sufficient parking and minimise potential highway-safety impact. The cited extract gives no underlying assessment.
Parking provision was found harmless
In a dismissed appeal, the Inspector concluded that parking provision would not harm highway safety in the area. The cited extract gives no supporting assessment.
Allowed extract gives no parking basis
The cited allowed extract concludes that the development was not inappropriate in the Green Belt. It gives no highway-safety conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific parking or access risk?
- Are nearby dropped kerbs genuinely comparable in garden size and approval?
- Do your plans show enough parking to avoid highway-safety harm?
The selected examples give no allowed highway-safety assessment, and the favourable dismissed extracts state conclusions without their supporting reasoning. 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 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
regularisation of two storey rear extension for additional living accommodation completed to the rear of the property and regularisation of new access created to [address] from [site address] .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; – the effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; - whether the development includes adequate arrangements for the operation and maintenance of the culvert; and - the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the above I find that the development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and thus falls within one of the exceptions set out in Paragraph 154 of the Framework and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not be contrary to the Framework in this regard and would not conflict with LP policy PSP7 and [name] (2013) (CS) policy CS5.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
28 November 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the installation of a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Appellant in their Statement of Case (SoC) notes that there are approvals by the Council of dropped kerbs to fronts of properties along A431 [name], Longwell Green.1 [name] have only been presented with the decision notices of these determinations, having visited these sites, the front garden areas are much wider and deeper and would appear to meet the Council’s policy. I am also aware from my site visit that there are driveways along [address] which do not meet the Council’s current standards and allow vehicles to reverse onto the street. I have not been presented with any evidence that concludes that such accesses have approval, with the Council commenting that many accesses are either historic or do not benefit from planning consent. Be that as it may, the presence of other accesses does not provide suitable justification to accentuate the level of harm caused to highway safety as a result of this particular development.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
29 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side and rear extension to form additional living accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with specific regard to privacy, access to light and outlook, and the character and appearance of the host dwelling; and whether sufficient car parking would be provided in the interest of highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal could provide sufficient parking in accordance with PSPP Policy PSP16 and so minimise potential impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
23 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Alterations to front elevation and other works to facilitate change of use of existing commercial units to 2 no. small HMOs (Use Class C4).’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, having regard to outlook; • The effect of the proposal on the character of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety in the area, having regard to parking provision.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety in the area, having regard to parking provision. In this respect, the proposal would accord with Policy CS8 of the [name] and Policies PSP16 and PSP39 of the PSPP. [name] collectively, amongst other matters, require that development provide parking in accordance with the Council’s parking standards, and, state that priority will be given to providing the users of new development with a range of travel options other than the private car.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4
19 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of front porch, alterations to roofline and dormer to facilitate the sub-division of 1 no. existing dwelling (Class C3) into 2 no. dwellings (Class C3). Installation of dropped kerb and formation of additional parking provision.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the development, namely the proposed rear dormer, on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. • The effect of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to the provision of parking and associated manoeuvring space; and • Whether suitable living conditions for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be provided with regard to internal space.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposed development would be unacceptable in relation to highway safety regarding the provision of parking. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies PSP11 and PSP16 of the LP, which require the appropriate level of safe parking facilities for new development to be met and for development to have an acceptable impact on highway and road safety.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3