Torbay Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Torbay?
Selected Torbay appeals show the parking, pavement and access evidence inspectors considered.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 138
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 12 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: Torbay LPA (50.440621, −3.530223). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Torbay Council appeal findings
Torbay access, parking and pavement safety evidence
The selected examples omit an outcome present in the matched local set. Several extracts state conclusions without the earlier safety analysis.
Counted against appeals
Tight bays and unsafe access in Torbay
Cars and doors over pavement
The constrained bays could leave car doors or vehicles over the pavement, obstructing pedestrians and increasing conflicts.
No contrary safety evidence
For the gated access, the Inspector said no substantive evidence countered the likely highway-safety harm.
Access harm was the conclusion
The Inspector concluded that the proposed access would have an unacceptable adverse effect on highway safety.
Helped or needed
Garage loss without extra street parking
No extra street parking
In the side-extension appeal, the Inspector found no increase in on-street parking or unacceptable highway-safety effect.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify spaces too tight for doors or larger vehicles?
- Could cars or doors obstruct the pavement for pedestrians?
- What evidence addresses visibility and a safe access standard?
Appeal 88570 concerns a street hub and several other issues, with only a 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
1 example
20 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension to provide additional accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the extension through the loss of the existing garage on highway safety and convenience in [address].
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On balance, I do not consider that the appeal proposal would result in an increase in on-street parking or that there would be an unacceptably harmful conflict with the above-mentioned policies. I am also mindful that paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (revised December 2024) says that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In my view there would be no such effect from this proposal and overall I shall allow the appeal and grant permission.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
17 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the formation of driveway to front elevation to include dropped kerb and steps.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effects of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The constrained width and length of the parking area as set out on the submitted plans, which falls below the specifications under [name], will at best, due to the proximity of the walling to the parking area, be likely to lead to even a small car being parked adjacent to the boundary of the appeal site, whereby doors from vehicles would open out across the adjacent pavement, or alternatively a small car would be likely to overlap onto the payment to enable car doorways to be opened into the site. The constrained size of the parking spaces would also give rise to concern regarding its use by larger vehicles, which would not be able to manoeuvre or fit within the parking area, this would be likely to lead in vehicles parking across the pavement from the parking area. The pavement is not land under the control of the appellant, and the circumstances highlighted above could obstruct pedestrians with a resultant increase in conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles to the detriment of highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
21 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described in the application as “proposed gated vehicular access.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would be likely to have a harmful effect on highway safety. As a consequence, there would be conflict with LP Policy TA2, which requires a safe standard of access with satisfactory visibility.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
11 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of 1no. [address] Hub and removal of associated BT payphones.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues with respect to Appeal A are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including the conservation area and the settings and thereby the significance of nearby listed buildings; • highway safety; • crime safety; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • climate change.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In relation to Appeal A, I find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. It would conflict with Policy DE1 of the Local Plan which seeks to, amongst other things, provide public space and routes that are safe.
Paragraph 34 · Source page 6
27 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the partial removal of boundary wall to front elevation. Formation of new off street parking bay and drop kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the use of the proposed access on highway safety; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed access would have an unacceptable, adverse impact on highway safety. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with policies TA1, TA2 and TA3 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek safe vehicular access, with improved road safety for all users and prevent the loss of on street parking in congested areas. It would also fail to comply with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as they seek safe and suitable access for all users and to prevent adverse impacts on highway safety.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3