Southend-on-Sea Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Southend-on-Sea?
Learn which crossover, junction and parking details featured in the selected local appeal decisions.
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 139
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- 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: Southend-on-Sea LPA (51.538043, 0.728596). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council appeal findings
Crossover safety and parking in Southend-on-Sea
Appeal 31796 is at the edge of this issue: its allowed extract names highway safety but gives no analysis.
Counted against appeals
Crossover and junction safety concerns
Crossover too close to the junction
At 6854, limited safety information left the Inspector concerned about vehicle manoeuvres and traffic slowing to enter the road.
Highway-safety harm was found
At 21651, the conclusion records highway-safety harm, but the displayed extract does not give the underlying analysis.
Helped or needed
What helped crossover and parking proposals
No identified crossover harm
At 21675, the Inspector found no harm to highway safety and no conflict with safe and suitable access.
Parking loss within road capacity
At 45084, losing on-street parking did not harm traffic flow because the Inspector found capacity to accommodate traffic safely.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your crossover is too near a road junction?
- Does it identify vehicle manoeuvres or turning traffic at risk?
- Does it assess parking loss and road capacity?
The selected extracts focus on Southend-on-Sea crossovers and parking, not every highway-safety circumstance. 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
3 examples
7 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a vehicular crossover.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In the absence of any harm to highway safety, I can find no conflict with any of the requirements of Policies KP2 or CP3 of the [site address] [name] (2007) or with Policy DM15 of the [site address] Development Management Document (2015). Neither do I find any conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for promoting sustainable transport by ensuring safe and suitable access to the site.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
19 January 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
new vehicular crossover.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety and the free flow of traffic as a result of the removal of an on-street parking space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the loss of one on-street parking space would not be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic. In so doing, it would accord with the Framework, and with the road safety aims of Policy CP3 of the Southend on [name] 2007. There would be no conflict with Policies DM3 and DM15 of the Council’s Development Management Document 2015, insofar as the proposal would not result in undue stress on transport capacity, and there would be physical and environmental capacity to accommodate the type and amount of traffic generated in a safe and sustainable manner. As the VCP allows for the loss of one space within a CPZ in assessing applications, the proposal would not conflict with the guidance in that document.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
26 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of single storey side and rear extensions and first floor rear extension, and form new vehicular crossover onto [address].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed rear extensions on the appearance of the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the wider area; ii) the effect on the living conditions of neighbours at [address] and the ground floor flat at No.80; and iii) the adequacy of the parking provision and its effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant has supplied an appendix that illustrates views from this veranda and from inside the accommodation at the rear of No.84, which appear to me to be reasonable representations of the effect of the proposal. These images, together with the letter from the resident owners of No.84, giving a reasoned response of support to the proposal, satisfy me that there would be no material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that dwelling. I can see no basis for the council’s conclusion that there would be significant harm to the amenity of the occupants of [address] through dominance, loss of outlook and an unacceptable sense of enclosure. The adequacy of the parking provision and its effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
30 November 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to install vehicle crossover on to [address], alter boundary wall and layout hardstanding to front.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council has not explained the likely hazards that could arise from the proposal. Equally, the appellants have provided limited information to demonstrate that introducing a crossover so close to a road junction would be safe, and would not cause material harm to highway safety. I note the appellants view that road users and pedestrians exercising due care and attention should be sufficient to avoid harm, as the access would be a minor feature of the urban environment of the type and nature safely negotiated all of the time. However, I consider that the manoeuvring of vehicles at this point could potentially introduce unnecessary additional hazards, and conflict with other vehicles slowing to enter [address]. No information has been provided regarding the status of the other nearby accesses, but this proposed access would be closer still to the junction.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
7 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to remove front boundary wall, layout parking to front and form vehicle crossover onto [address].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Leigh Cliff Conservation Area, and upon highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, I have found that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Leigh Cliff Conservation Area. There is a statutory duty for me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. This carries significant weight. I also find that it would be harmful to highway safety. The circumstances at No 14 and on the opposite side of [address] do not alter these findings. When weighed in the overall balance, the weight I attach to the other considerations that have been put to me do not outweigh the harms that I have identified and the conflicts with the development plan.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4