Southampton City Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Southampton?
See how the selected examples treated access hazards, parking loss and technical evidence.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 51
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 6 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: Southampton LPA (50.916988, −1.398714). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Southampton City Council appeal findings
Southampton highway safety: dropped kerbs, parking and technical evidence
The selected examples include fewer allowed decisions than the matched local set. Some extracts give conclusions rather than full reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Parking loss and unsafe access
Lost parking displaced vehicles
Removing on-street parking was concluded to displace vehicles and harm highway safety.
Dropped-kerb access was hazardous
The proposed driveway access was found an unacceptable hazard to highway and pedestrian safety.
Technical evidence did not remove concern
The conclusion says there was insufficient technical evidence to rule out highway-safety concerns.
Helped or needed
Allowed crossover conclusion
No adverse highway-safety finding
For the dropped-kerb proposal, the Inspector concluded the crossover would not adversely affect highway safety. The extract gives no further reasons.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify lost on-street parking and where displaced vehicles would go?
- Does it explain a specific risk to people using the pavement or road?
- What technical evidence would answer the highway-safety concern in the refusal?
One selected example is a multi-issue scheme. Its highway-safety conclusion is at the edge of this page's issue. 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
20 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for a dropped kerb to the front of the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed vehicular access on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed crossover would not, in this case adversely affect highway safety. The formation of the access would therefore accord with the objectives of saved Policies SDP1(i) and T12 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (revised March 2015), Policy CS13 (4) of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (revised March 2015) and as supported by Part 5 of the Council’s approved Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2006) and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) as they, amongst other things, relate to highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 16, with particular regard to the impact of the height and proximity of the proposed acoustic fencing and canopy structures on the outlook and the level of sunlight entering the side kitchen window, • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the effect of the proposed boundary treatment along [site address] , • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and external lighting, • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of properties in [site address] , with particular regard to vehicular movements associated with the development, and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to the proposed boundary treatment along the pavement edge of [site address] .
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would give rise to economic benefits and would bring a previously developed site back into use. These are benefits to which I attach moderate weight. However, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise disturbance, loss of outlook, lighting, loss of sunlight, and the likelihood of queuing traffic. It would also detract from the character and appearance of the area, notably through the introduction of acoustic fencing and gates along the [site address] frontage. Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient technical evidence to the contrary, I am not satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to highway safety concerns. These adverse effects attract substantial weight.
Paragraph 44 · Source page 7
8 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “retrospective consent for change of use from Class E to B2 and associated shop alterations”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (a) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with specific regard to noise, and (b) highway safety and parking availability.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
While the development would not harm parking availability, it would be harmful to highway safety. Therefore, it would be contrary to [name] 1 (i), SDP 11 (i) and (ii), REI 6 and TI 2 of the Local Plan, and Policy CS 13 (4) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015). Collectively, they seek to promote safe and accessible streets and quality spaces.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
11 August 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to install a dropped kerb to serve new block paving driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety by virtue of removing parking for visitors or other residents.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the works will result in the loss of on-street parking for visitors and residents of the area that will result in displacement and harm to highway safety in the area. There are no material considerations that outweigh the harm I have identified and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
3 April 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb to allow driveway access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed dropped kerb on highway safety and residents’ parking.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I find that the proposed dropped kerb to allow highway access would be an unacceptable hazard as regards highway and pedestrian safety. This would be contrary to Policies SDP1 & T12 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (amended 2015); Paragraph 5.2 of the [name] 2006, and to Government policy in Section 9: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021. (The Council also referred to Policy SDP7 of the Local Plan Review but in my view have not justified any conflict with this policy).
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2