Swale Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Swale?
See the safety concerns in selected Swale examples and what allowed examples said about access or parking.
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 64
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- 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: Swale LPA (51.341687, 0.813171). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Swale Borough Council appeal findings
Swale dropped kerbs and parking safety
The selected examples include fewer dismissed appeals than the matched local set. Two dismissed extracts give only conclusions, and one allowed extract ends before its conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Dropped-kerb access concerns in Swale
Dropped kerb and driveway found unsafe
For the proposed dropped kerb and driveway, the Inspector concluded there would be unacceptable harm to highway safety.
Front driveway lacked safe access
For a dropped kerb and front driveway, the Inspector concluded the proposal would harm highway safety and not achieve safe vehicular access.
Helped or needed
Safe kerbs and parking in Swale
Dropped kerb caused no highway harm
For the dropped kerb, the Inspector concluded there would be no adverse highway-safety effect for its users.
Parking availability and no highway harm
With parking availability in mind, the Inspector concluded the scheme would not harm highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific unsafe access or driveway feature?
- Does it explain why your parking space or availability is unsafe?
- What evidence shows safe vehicular access for people using the site?
Appeal 28068 also covers streetscene and listed buildings, so this review uses only its highway-safety conclusion. 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 December 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘dropped kerb’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As such, in light of the above considerations, I find that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on highway safety in terms of its users. Accordingly, the proposal would accord with the Policies CP4 and DM14 of the SBLP, which, amongst other aims, seek to ensure that development proposals reflect the positive characteristics of features of the site and locality.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
31 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed development on the appeal property, its immediate surroundings and the rural character and appearance of the area; ii) effect of the proposal on highway safety and convenience, bearing in mind the size of the proposed parking spaces.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Clearly the proposal, taken as a whole, breaches the guidance in the SPG by a wide margin. Paragraph 3.3 of the SPG includes the word ‘normally’, which is a proper approach in guidance of this sort. It does not carry the weight of policy: in this case I consider that the breach of 60% guidance does not warrant the refusal of planning permission. The effect of the proposal on highway safety and convenience, bearing in mind the size of the proposed parking spaces
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4
20 July 2022 · 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 with particular regard to the availability of parking space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the scheme would not result in harm to highway safety with particular regard to the availability of parking space. It would meet Policies DM7 and DM14 of [name] 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan July 2017 (LP) and the provisions of the SPD, which require parking facilities in accordance with the County Council's standards.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
13 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as “We would like to have a dropped kerb outside of [site address] [site address] with a driveway close to the house”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: - The effect on highway safety. - The effect on the streetscene and the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Buildings at 14 and 16 [site address] .
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons it is concluded that the proposal would be unacceptably detrimental to highway safety. There would be conflict with [name] 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan (LP) July 2017, [name] 6 and DM 14. Taken together and, among other things, these seek to prevent new accesses directly onto [name] and to achieve safe vehicular access.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
5 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the insertion of a drop kerb and creation of a front driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposal on: • Highway safety; and • The character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, I consider that the proposal would give rise to harm to highway safety, and as such would conflict with policy DM14 of “[name] 2031” - The Swale Borough Local Plan (2017) (BF) which requires all development proposals to achieve safe vehicular access. In addition, the proposal would not satisfy the guidance contained in the [name] and would therefore conflict with BF Policy DM7 which requires development proposals, not just new property builds, to accord with the SPD’s standards.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2