Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Wigan Metropolitan?
See what the selected examples say about parking safety and the facts to check.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 6 of 47
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 6 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: Wigan LPA (53.52417, −2.589574). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Parking safety in Wigan refusals
There is no allowed local comparator. The selected examples show dismissals only, and the matched local set includes a dismissed appeal not displayed here.
Counted against appeals
Unsafe parking and added demand
Extra demand had no safe space
The Inspector found increased parking demand could not be safely accommodated nearby without an unacceptable highway-safety risk.
Conclusion-only parking harm
These extracts record highway-safety harm and cite requirements for appropriate, safe parking. Neither gives site-level detail.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Show safe parking capacity
A selected dismissal found extra parking demand could not be safely accommodated nearby. It shows that convenient, safe off-street parking still needed to be demonstrated.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal notice say extra parking demand cannot be safely accommodated?
- Can you show convenient, safe off-street parking for the proposal?
- Does the refusal notice raise another issue besides parking safety?
Appeal 53015’s cited extract addresses fence appearance, not pedestrian safety, so it is not used as highway-safety evidence. 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
20 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The appeal site is in the Green Belt. The Council considers that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, on the grounds that it would not result in a disproportionate addition. I find no reason to consider otherwise. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I find that increased parking demand would not be safely accommodated within the vicinity of the proposed development without an unacceptable risk to highway safety. This conflicts with the PN and the [address] [name] 2019, which, when taken together, seek to ensure that extensions which increase off-street parking demand do not result in detriment to highway safety, taking into account the availability of convenient and safe off-street parking.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
18 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on:- • the character and appearance of the street scene; • highway safety in regard to parking provision.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would result in significant harm to highway safety, contrary to development plan policy CP7 in the CS that seeks to ensure the provision of appropriate, well designed, convenient, safe and secure parking provision.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
30 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side and single storey rear extensions with widening of driveway to provide one additional parking space.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Council have raised no issue in respect of the proposed single storey rear extension. The main issues in this case are therefore the effect of the proposed side extension on the living conditions of the neighbours at [address], and the effect of the proposed parking arrangement on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude on the second main issue that the proposed car parking arrangement would not be detrimental to highway safety. It would not conflict with CS Policy CP7, saved Policy A1S of the Wigan Unitary Development Plan (2006) and PfE Policy JP-C8 which all seek to ensure provision of appropriate and safe parking.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
25 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a side and rear single storey extension, with loft conversion with velux lights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the street scene, and the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety. It would be contrary to the Parking Policy Note and Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy policy CP7 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure the provision of appropriate and safe parking as part of new development.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
25 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a 1.8m high fence.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on highway safety with particular regard to pedestrians.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Although there are examples of other high fences in the area, these do not suggest that this fence should be accepted. It must be considered on its individual merits given its particular design and its immediate context. Whilst there are clearly benefits of providing privacy to this side area of garden and improved security, the fence is of a height and design that cannot be accommodated on this corner without harm to the immediate area. The benefits of improved privacy and security do not outweigh this concern.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2