West Berkshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in West Berkshire?
See the selected highway-safety findings and facts to compare with 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
- 5 of 66
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- 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: West Berkshire LPA (51.449588, −1.304491). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
West Berkshire Council appeal findings
Highway safety: access, pedestrians and traffic
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples show only dismissed reasoning. One takeaway example also covers pedestrian safety and traffic flow.
Counted against appeals
Road, pedestrian and access harm
Self-storage safety harm
Both self-storage decisions concluded that the development would harm highway safety and conflict with local-road safety requirements.
Pedestrians, traffic and access
The takeaway conclusion found harm to pedestrian safety and traffic flow. The new dwelling conclusion conflicted with requirements for safe and suitable access.
Different site circumstances
The cited decisions had different site circumstances, so they did not change the Inspector’s highway-safety conclusion.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local comparator
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
An acceptable safety effect
The selected self-storage examples ended with harmful highway-safety conclusions. They do not show an acceptable safety effect.
Safe access and traffic flow
The new-dwelling extract does not show safe access was achieved. The takeaway extract does not show acceptable pedestrian or traffic effects.
Matching site circumstances
The other appeal decisions had different circumstances in the access example. They did not remove the highway-safety risk.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal specify the access or road-safety risk?
- Does it mention pedestrian safety or traffic flow?
- Does it explain why comparable appeal sites differ?
All displayed West Berkshire highway-safety examples are dismissed, and several extracts give only their final conclusion. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
19 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Change of Use to allow Retention of Four and [name] of 20 [name] for Self-Storage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on highway safety. It would conflict with part g. of Policy DM42 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted June 2025) (Local Plan Review) which provides that, amongst other things, development will, where necessary, be required to make a proportionate contribution to the provision of or improvement to transport infrastructure including, where relevant, improvements to the safety of the local road network.
Paragraph 30 · Source pages 5, 6
19 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as, “Change of Use to allow Retention of [name] for Self-Storage (Retrospective)”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on highway safety. It conflicts with part g. of Policy DM42 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted June 2025) (Local Plan Review) which provides that, amongst other things, development will, where necessary, be required to make a proportionate contribution to the provision of or improvement to transport infrastructure including, where relevant, improvements to the safety of the local road network.
Paragraph 28 · Source page 5
19 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as, “Change of use from [name] to a Takeaway shop. Barber shop will move to a different location or probably next door”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • pedestrian safety, highway safety, and the free flow of traffic; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, odour, and fumes.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on pedestrian safety, highway safety, and the free flow of traffic. It would conflict with the 2nd bullet point of Policy SP19 of the [site address] Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted 2025) (Local Plan) which provides that development that generates a transport impact will be required to improve and promote opportunities for active travel.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
6 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
new single dwelling on a site within the settlement boundary.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are (1) the effect of the proposal on highway safety, and (2) whether the proposal would make adequate provision for drainage.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety. Consequently, it would conflict with LPR policy SP19 and its supporting text, which identifies safety as a key consideration. It would similarly conflict with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which require safe and suitable access, and no unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
26 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
creation of a new access and egress on to the A329 to serve a parking space with electric vehicle charging point.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant has referred me to numerous other appeal decisions where Inspectors have accepted layouts where less than suggested visibility splays would be provided. I have considered the circumstances of each of these. However, I am mindful that each case must be considered on its merits and none of those cases share the same specific circumstances as this case, which has led to my conclusion that there would be unacceptable highway safety risk. The other appeal decisions therefore do not affect my overall conclusion.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3