Warwick District Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Warwick?
Learn which access, visibility and parking evidence inspectors discussed in selected Warwick appeal decisions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 104
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 1
- of 5 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: Warwick LPA (52.31002, −1.584674). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Warwick District Council appeal findings
Warwick access, visibility and parking-space evidence
An energy-storage example is at the edge of this highway-safety page and gives only a parking conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Warwick driveway and parking concerns
Poor driveway visibility near a junction
Even at low speeds, poor visibility and pulling out to see traffic created conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.
Undersized spaces risked highway harm
Without contrary evidence, undersized spaces were likely to create highway-safety impacts or harm existing residents.
Access lacked surveillance
The access would not benefit from an attractive or safe environment because it lacked surveillance.
Helped or needed
Warwick swept paths and parking evidence
Swept paths showed a workable exit
A swept-path analysis showed vehicles could leave even with cars parked opposite the proposed accesses.
Churchyard parking was not frequent
Evidence showed low vehicle speeds and parking beside the churchyard was occasional and temporary.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify poor visibility from your driveway or nearby junction?
- Are your parking spaces undersized, and does evidence show they can be used safely?
- Would a swept-path drawing test vehicles leaving when nearby parking is occupied?
The selected examples cannot show whether a different Warwick site has safe access or parking. 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
15 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
construction and operation of a micro energy storage project.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, with particular regard to noise; • the effect of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to parking for maintenance vehicles; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 2 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety, with particular regard to parking for maintenance vehicles. It would, therefore, accord with Policy TR1 of the LP which requires all developments to provide safe, suitable, and attractive access routes for all users, and ensure that these are not detrimental to highway safety.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4
19 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of 2no. detached single storey dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the development on highway safety, in particular whether the proposed development provides sufficient and suitable parking and access.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
This must be assessed against the context of the existing use of [address]. It is not heavily used by motor vehicles and speeds would be low. There would be vehicles parked by the churchyard in preparation for and during burials, but the evidence before me suggests these are not frequent. Other parking also takes place when people visit existing graves. However, notwithstanding a greater intensity on occasions such as Christmas or [name], this is occasional and temporary. [address] is narrow, the appellant’s submitted swept path analysis shows that vehicles could turn out of the site even with cars parked by the graveyard opposite the proposed accesses. Therefore, even with some additional parking arising from the development the proposed parking arrangements would not result in on-street car parking detrimental to highway safety. For the reasons set out above, I find that the parking arrangements would not conflict with policy TR3 of the Local Plan.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
16 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the erection of seven apartments (C3) adjacent to the existing public house ([name]) with associated parking and landscaping’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to noise from the nearby public house; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In making my decision, I have had regards to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires decision makers not to resist development on highway grounds unless there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Paragraph 117 goes on to set out that within this context, development should, along with other requirements to (c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive. To that end, and as described above, this access would not benefit from an attractive or safe environment through its lack of surveillance.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
11 December 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “demolition of an existing single storey timber and brick storage garage, and the erection of a two-storey chalet bungalow consisting of two apartments.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and whether it would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Royal [site address] Conservation Area; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to outlook; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, and the living conditions of existing residents, with particular regard to the demand for parking.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the undersized spaces would likely result in either unacceptable highway safety impacts or harm to living conditions of existing residents. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposal would therefore conflict with either Policy TR3 or Policy BE3 of the Local Plan. Policy TR3 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure development would not result in on-street car parking detrimental to highway safety. Nevertheless, given the accessible location of the appeal site, the modest scale of the proposal and the generally low traffic levels along [address], the degree of resulting harm would be limited.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 5
29 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Retrospective planning permission for a driveway already part done’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon highway and pedestrian safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant suggests that bends in the road, nearby junctions, and narrow sections of road mean that traffic approaching the site is likely to be travelling at speeds below the 30 mile per hour speed limit. Nonetheless, even at relatively low speeds, poor visibility for vehicles leaving the driveway and turning towards it from the nearby junction, and resultant need to pull out into the highway to see on-coming traffic, would lead to conflict between vehicles and pedestrians harming highway and pedestrian safety. The development therefore conflicts with Policy TR1 of the Warwick District Local Plan (2017) which only permits development that provides safe and suitable access.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2