Uttlesford District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Uttlesford?
See selected examples of access concerns, missing mitigation and an allowed condition decision before checking your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 90
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 10 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: Uttlesford LPA (51.934711, 0.279744). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Uttlesford District Council appeal findings
Uttlesford crossings and access safety
The selected examples lean more towards dismissals than the matched local set. The only allowed extract gives only a conclusion; one dismissed example covers commercial storage.
Counted against appeals
Substandard access and unsafe crossings
Access hazard lacked mitigation
A substandard access was judged hazardous to road users where suitable mitigation measures were absent.
Crossings conflicted with requirements
The Inspector concluded the proposal conflicted with requirements for vehicle crossings not to harm road safety and for suitable access.
Safety effect was unproven
The Inspector concluded the proposal had failed to show it would avoid an unacceptable highway-safety effect.
Helped or needed
Removing the highway-safety condition
No harm from removal
The Inspector concluded that removing the condition would not harm highway safety, so it was neither reasonable nor necessary.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific unsafe access or vehicle crossing?
- Does it say what mitigation would address the road-user hazard?
- Is the issue a condition, or the safety of the proposal itself?
The only allowed case concerns removing a condition, not approving a new proposal. 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
11 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as ‘Two storey extension and roof alterations.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether Condition 4 is reasonable and necessary in the interest of highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the removal of the subject condition would not result in harm to highway safety. Accordingly, the relevant tests in the Framework and the PPG have not been met in this case and the condition is neither reasonable nor necessary. There are no relevant development plan policies before me which conflict with this.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
9 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of brick piers and timber gates.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with LP policy 27 which requires the delivery of highway safety measures at and around development sites so as to reduce road dangers and to facilitate safe movements for all users and transport modes. It would be contrary to the [name] authority’s Parking Guidance (2024) which requires that vehicle crossings do not adversely affect road safety, and to the Framework which requires safe and suitable access arrangements to sites.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
30 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the change of use of agricultural hardstanding to B8 commercial outside storage including stationing of storage containers.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether or not the development is in an acceptable location having regard to development plan policies and the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of heritage assets; • The effect of the development on highway safety; and • The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby residential occupants, with particular regard to noise, disturbance, vibration or smells.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, erring on the side of caution, I must conclude that the substandard access would present an unacceptable degree of hazard to road users to the detriment of highway safety. In the absence of suitable mitigation measures to address the concerns, the development is contrary to ULP Core Policy 27 which seeks, amongst other things, to deliver highway safety measures at and around the development site. It would also conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are safe and minimise the scope for conflicts with different users.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 5
4 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two story side and rear extension, garage conversion with a new flat roof, entrance hall canopy and driveway to be enlarged for additional off street parking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the original dwelling house, the street scene and the surrounding locality; and ii) the adequacy of off street parking proposed, and the effect on traffic congestion and highway safety
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Finally there is the matter of the adequacy of off street parking proposed, and the effect on traffic congestion and highway safety. The totality of the proposals for enlargement of the appeal property would see the existing 3 bedroom house become one with 4 bedrooms. Policy GEN8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan adopted in 2005 requires development to comply with the council's parking standards which would require 3 off-street parking spaces. [name].2040-24.PL.001 dated April 2024 shows one parking spot diagonally on the enlarged driveway across the front of the curtilage. On the face of it, the illustration does not accurately reflect the number of cars that could be parked. There is 1 existing parking space in front of the garage, which would remain. It appears to me that the area available would indeed accommodate 3 cars, but in view of the decision that I am making on the appeal proposal as a whole, the is a matter that I need not pursue.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
26 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed single storey side extension. Alterations to existing front garden to provide an in-and-out driveway along with an additional dropped kerb. Relocation of existing brick wall to the boundary line on road.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development has failed to demonstrate that there would not be any unacceptable effect on highway safety. There is conflict with Policy GEN1 of the Local Plan which amongst other thing seeks to ensure developments do not compromise road safety.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 2