Thurrock Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Thurrock?
Learn what the selected examples say about access, parking and the evidence still missing.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 14 of 115
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 14 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: Thurrock LPA (51.50598, 0.373249). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Thurrock Council appeal findings
Thurrock access and parking conclusions
The selected examples lean toward dismissals, unlike the matched local set. Most extracts give conclusions only. One also involves Green Belt harm.
Counted against appeals
Thurrock access and parking concerns
Safe access not demonstrated
The Inspector was not persuaded the scheme could be implemented without an unacceptable highway-safety impact.
On-street parking not secured
Insufficient on-street parking and no signed legal agreement meant highway safety harm even with a reduced parking requirement.
Safety harm not outweighed
The Inspector concluded highway safety harm alongside Green Belt harm was not clearly outweighed.
Helped or needed
Thurrock access and parking accepted
All users could use the scheme
The Inspector concluded the proposed access and layout were safe and suitable without unacceptable highway-safety harm.
Parking did not create safety harm
The Inspector concluded the on-street parking effect on pedestrian and highway safety would be acceptable.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify an unsafe access route?
- Does it say on-street parking is insufficient?
- Does it say a legal agreement is missing?
The selected extracts give conclusions, not the detailed access or parking analysis behind them. 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
16 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a residential development comprising eight units (all matters reserved except layout and access).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, noise and disturbance; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to the proposed access; • whether the proposal would provide adequate parking; and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed access and layout would provide safe and suitable access for all users and would not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies PMD2 and PMD9 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek to ensure developments have appropriately designed layouts, adequate access for all users, and do not prejudice road safety.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
13 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as “proposed part single and part two storey side extension, single storey rear extension with associated internal alterations”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on pedestrian and highway safety with particular regard to on-street car parking provision.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the effect of the proposal on pedestrian and highway safety with particular regard to on-street car parking provision would be acceptable. There would be some conflict with CSPMD policy PMD8 which seeks to ensure appropriate provision of car parking for all development however I have given limited weight to this conflict for the reasons given. The proposal would not conflict with CSPMD policy PMD9 insofar as it seeks to ensure developments do not impact adversely on capacity and safety.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
17 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Outline planning permission for construction of 4 self and custom dwellinghouses in a phased manner with all matters reserved’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
In contrast, having considered further information provided with this revised application, the Highways Authority recommended refusal. The reasons for refusal reflect that advice, so the effect on highway safety is now a contested issue. Against that background, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, • the effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt, • the effect on highway safety, and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the proposed development could be implemented without having an unacceptable impact on highway safety. That would conflict with the relevant requirements in Policy PMD9 of the CSPMD and also with Policy PMD2, which requires amongst other things that development proposals must allow easy and safe access for all members of the community. It would also conflict with relevant requirements in the Framework, including the requirement in paragraph 115 that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, and the provision in paragraph 116 for development to be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 44 · Source page 8
13 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use of vacant agricultural land to equestrian facilities.
Issue identified by the Inspector
An Officer Report had been prepared prior to submission of the appeal, but the appeal was lodged before the application could be determined. The officer’s recommendation was that planning permission should be refused for three reasons, relating to conflict with development plan policies for development in the Green Belt, the effect on the character and appearance of the area and the effect on highway safety. The Council’s statement of case also refers to those recommended reasons for refusal. Against that background, the main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, • the effect on highway safety, • the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Even if considered collectively, the other considerations fall well short of clearly outweighing the substantial weight which should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including the harm to openness, and the harm to highway safety. I therefore conclude that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 31 · Source page 6
16 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing premises and construction new three-storey block to provide a mixed scheme of 2 retail units and 7no. apartments.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) highway safety in relation to parking provision and deliveries; and b) the living conditions of future occupiers.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, the absence of sufficient on-street parking provision or a signed legal agreement to address the issue mean that even applying a reduced parking requirement, there would be harm to highway safety. It is for this reason that the proposal would be contrary to [name] 2 and PMD 8 of the CSPMD which, amongst other things, require developments to respond to a site’s surroundings and adopt an appropriate approach towards parking provision.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 3