Stafford Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Stafford?
Compare missing visibility evidence with the limited detail in the allowed extracts.
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 50
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 2
- 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: Stafford LPA (52.848191, −2.176491). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Stafford Borough Council appeal findings
Visibility splays at Stafford accesses
The selected examples include both outcomes, but their outcome mix differs from the matched local set. Allowed extracts 89244 and 44601 give conclusions only, not the evidence behind them.
Counted against appeals
Visibility evidence at new accesses
Leftward visibility was not achieved
The highways report said each new frontage access could not achieve the required visibility splay to the left.
Claims needed supporting data
The inspector had no collision research, evidence of slower traffic, or substantiated comparable accesses.
Nearby obstacles were material
The inspector highlighted mature trees and a telegraph pole or streetlight near the proposed access alongside inadequate visibility splays.
Helped or needed
Allowed highway-safety conclusions
No harm from the proposal
The inspector concluded the proposal would not harm highway safety. The extract does not identify the evidence behind that conclusion.
No harm from the boundary wall
The inspector concluded the retained boundary wall caused no highway-safety harm. The extract does not explain why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a visibility splay missing from your proposed access?
- Does it question traffic speed, collision evidence or comparisons with nearby accesses?
- Do your plans show clear sightlines past trees, poles or streetlights?
Appeals 89786, 89703 and 84509 also cover other issues; this review uses only their highway-safety wording. 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
2 examples
22 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of two dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. It would accord with Policy T2 of The Plan for Stafford Borough, where it requires safe and adequate means of access and that schemes do not impair highway safety or traffic movement.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
10 January 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
to retain existing new-build boundary wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude for the reasons given and having regard to all matters raised, that no harm to highway safety arises from the development which is the subject of this appeal and identified on the plans submitted with it. Therefore no conflict arises with policy T2 of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2014 which seeks safe and adequate access nor, in consequence, with the development plan as a whole and on that basis the appeal succeeds. As the works have been carried out no timing condition is necessary.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
3 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
installation of 1No. [address] [name] and associated advertisement panels on either side of the unit.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in relation to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the street scene, including the Stafford Town Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the [name] listed Chetwyn Centre1 and its individually listed features the [name] listed war memorial2 and the [name] listed gateways3; and, • highway safety.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In relation to Appeal A, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety and would therefore conflict with Policy T2 of the LP, which states that all development must not materially impair highway safety or traffic movement.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5
2 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
hybrid application seeking outline planning permission for the erection of 19 dwellings with all matters reserved except for means of access and detailed permission for the conversion of a barn into a dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: the character and appearance of the area, including upon green infrastructure; highway safety, with particular regard to footway provision along the south side of [address] and the access arrangement on [address]; and whether the proposal would make adequate provision for BNG.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The Highways Report accompanying the proposals identifies that the frontage accesses to serve the [address] would not be able to achieve the required visibility splays looking to the left out of each access. Research carried out for ‘Manual for Streets 2’, which found no evidence that a failure to provide visibility in accordance with values recommended in Manual for Streets or the [name] for Roads and Bridges actually resulted in an increased risk of injury collisions, is not before me. Moreover, assertions that there are a number of accesses on [address] with restricted visibility splays have not been substantiated. In light of this and the absence of data to demonstrate that the speed of vehicles on [address] is below the 30mph speed limit, I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that the visibility splays to the new accesses off [address] would not lead to unacceptable harm to highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
17 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: agricultural track to access agricultural building – for everyday use with light weight vehicles (not agricultural machinery/implements).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The site is located in the North Staffordshire Green Belt, and the appellant and Council agree that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would not harm the openness or permanence of the Green Belt. I see no reason to disagree with their conclusions in this regard. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and • whether the proposed development would meet the statutory requirements for the provision of biodiversity net gain.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, in the absence of adequate visibility splays, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the visibility of the access would not result in an unacceptable harmful effect upon highway safety. This is especially pertinent given the mature trees and telegraph pole/streetlight near to the proposed access.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2