St Albans City and District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in St Albans City and District?
Learn which access problems inspectors found and which local evidence supported a safe driveway or dropped kerb.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 139
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 7 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: St Albans LPA (51.772092, −0.34247). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
St Albans City and District Council appeal findings
Vehicle access evidence in St Albans
The displayed examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set because some dismissed reasoning is not shown. The 85980 extract also covers other issues.
Counted against appeals
Access failures in dismissed cases
Unacceptable highway-safety risk
In 2493, the Inspector concluded that the proposed access posed an unacceptable highway-safety risk.
Suitable access not demonstrated
In 85980, the Inspector found suitable vehicular access had not been demonstrated and that the proposal would enable driver conflict.
Helped or needed
Evidence supporting safe access
Historic use without accidents
In 64378, historic driveway use and no associated accidents were among the matters supporting the allowed decision.
Similar driveways nearby
In 64378, similar driveways nearby and no material change in circumstances formed part of the Inspector's reasoning.
Ending use of existing spaces
In 27431, the Inspector required a condition to stop use of the existing spaces.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice identify a safe, suitable vehicle access?
- Does it explain potential conflict between drivers at the access?
- Does it address historic driveway use, accidents and nearby comparable driveways?
Several displayed highway-access extracts state conclusions rather than the earlier evidence or analysis. 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
1 February 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
dropped kerb to front of dwelling with parking spaces and hardstanding, closing of existing access and alterations to fencing and new gates.
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
I therefore conclude the proposal would not harm highway safety and would not conflict with Policies 34 and 39 of the LPR, nor with the development plan taken as a whole. In consequence, and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal should succeed subject to the usual timing and plans conditions and, in order to accord with the basis of my reasoning, a condition to ensure the use of the existing spaces is discontinued is necessary.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
18 October 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the scheme does not cause an adverse effect on highway safety. It accords with Policy 34 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994, which provides for highway considerations in development control. The proposal is also consistent with the advice the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
11 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a drop kerb for driveway and relocation of lamp post.
Issue identified by the Inspector
There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed drop kerb and lamp post relocation on highway safety, including the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all matters into consideration, including the similar driveways nearby, the historic use of the driveway, the lack of any associated accidents, the tacit acceptance of its use in 2019 by both the Council and the HA and the lack of any material change in circumstance since that time, other than the small increase in the parking space standard, I find that on balance the proposed development would not amount to a material highway safety hazard and should be allowed.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
31 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a cross-over featuring a dropped kerb to enable access to a hard-standing in the front garden of the property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety. This would conflict with Policy 34 of the [site address] District Local Plan 1994, which states that development which involves the creation of an access onto the public highway will not normally be permitted unless acceptable in terms of road safety, including having adequate visibility and turning radii.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
16 March 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 character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupants in terms of privacy in the rear garden area and whether the proposed dwelling would offer satisfactory internal accommodation; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of 131 and 133 Westfields in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight; • the effect on protected trees; and • the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I am referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of considering whether the impact on highway safety would be considered severe. Nevertheless, paragraph 115 b) of the Framework states that it should be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. I therefore find that a suitable vehicular access has not been demonstrated and as such the proposal would enable conflict to arise between drivers accessing No 24 and the proposed dwelling, leading to a harmful effect on highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 34 of the LPR. This policy seeks, amongst other things, that road safety is taken into consideration in assessing developments.
Paragraph 37 · Source page 6