Wiltshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Wiltshire?
See the access, visibility, parking and highway-capacity evidence inspectors addressed in the selected Wiltshire examples.
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 127
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 10
- 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: Wiltshire LPA (51.300637, −1.947286). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wiltshire Council appeal findings
Wiltshire visibility, parking and highway-capacity evidence
Among the selected examples, Appeal 79914 concerns a garage conversion. It is a narrow comparator for access and highway-network proposals.
Counted against appeals
Unsafe access and unproven capacity
Essential visibility splays missing
The proposed access lacked the visibility splays the Inspector considered essential at that location.
Network capacity was not demonstrated
The evidence did not adequately show that the surrounding highway network could safely accommodate the development.
Dropped kerb found harmful
The Inspector concluded that the dropped-kerb proposal would harm highway safety. The displayed extract gives no further reason.
Helped or needed
Evidence that helped a garage conversion
Garage already used for storage
The Inspector observed that the garage was used for storage rather than parking, with no apparent overspill or traffic-flow impact.
Parking loss treated as minor
The parking-standard shortfall was treated as minor in the absence of evidence of unacceptable highway-safety harm.
Services reachable without driving
The Inspector also noted foot, cycle and bus access to local services from the estate.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify missing visibility splays at the access?
- Does the refusal notice say network capacity has not been demonstrated?
- Does the refusal notice address how the garage or parking space is actually used?
Appeal 90241 addresses several other issues and its highway extract finds no harm, making it an edge-of-scope comparator. 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
18 November 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
conversion of a garage to a habitable room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (a) the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, and (b) whether sufficient provision has been made for secure cycle storage.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[name] accept that the proposal would reduce on-site parking from 3 to 2 spaces, contrary to the minimum parking standards, the level of conflict with the WCS and WLTP is, in my view, minor. Given also the absence of evidence of unacceptable harm to highway safety, I am satisfied, on balance, that the loss of the garage would in this instance be acceptable. My finding in this respect is supported by the current position where the garage is used for storage and not parking, with no apparent overspill or any impact on highway safety or on the free flow of traffic. [name] also observed on my visit, the estate is in a sustainable location with a good level of accessibility by foot and cycle to local services, as well as to local bus services.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
13 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
removal of front boundary wall and widen existing vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not provide adequate visibility splays which are essential at this location and would constitute an unacceptable risk to highway safety. It follows that the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy CP61 of the [name] (2015), which requires, among other things, development to provide safe access to the highway network.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
5 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb to facilitate driveway and parking.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would be harmful to highway safety. The other considerations that have been put forward do not indicate to me that the appeal should be determined otherwise in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
11 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Change of use of land (Class E) and the erection of one two-storey dwelling house (Class C3)’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are • Whether the site would be in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerning new housing with reference to its effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings and the effect on public right of way MALM26; • The effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the Malmesbury Conservation Area and on the setting of nearby listed buildings; • The effect of the development on the Conygre Local Nature Reserve; • The effect of the proposed parking and access arrangements on highway safety on the B4040 [address]; • Whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with regard to noise and odour from the adjoining restaurant; and • Whether the future occupiers of the proposed development would be at risk of flooding.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude, for the reasons given, that the proposed parking and access arrangements would not have a harmful effect on highway safety on the B4040 [address]. It would comply with [name] 60, 61 and 64 regarding transport and new development.
Paragraph 38 · Source page 6
4 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
full planning application for the erection of 2no buildings amounting to 3,712 sqm GIA ([name](g), B2 (general industrial), B8 (storage and distribution)) with external areas, access, parking, landscaping and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: - the effect of the proposal on highway safety and the highway network; -whether the site is in a suitable location for the proposal having regard to local and national development objectives for the location of development and accessibility; and -whether the proposal makes adequate provision for BNG.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the surrounding highway network has the capacity to safely accommodate the development without harm to highway safety. The proposal would therefore conflict with those aims of [name] (2015) (CS) policies 60, 61 and 62 which collectively seek to support and encourage the sustainable, safe and efficient movement of people and goods and which require that consideration has been given to the needs of all transport users, providing mitigating measures to offset any adverse impacts on the transport network. I also find conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to ensure that development creates spaces that are safe, secure and attractive minimising the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Location of development and accessibility
Paragraph 18 · Source page 4