Woking Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Woking?
See the cited access concerns and evidence supporting selected allowed Woking appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 112
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 7
- of 7 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: Woking LPA (51.313876, −0.560739). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Woking Borough Council appeal findings
Woking driveway access and dropped kerbs
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set; 40852 is an edge-of-scope character-and-appearance case.
Counted against appeals
Crossover safety concern in Woking
Proposal could harm highway safety
For the new crossover and dropped kerb, the Inspector concluded that the proposal could have an unacceptable highway-safety impact.
Helped or needed
Woking parking evidence and access safety
Similar parking, no highway objection
The Inspector noted similar off-street parking nearby, no County Highway Authority objection and no substantive evidence of unacceptable safety harm or severe road-network effects.
No unacceptable impact found
For a dropped kerb, the Inspector was not persuaded that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal set out how the proposed access could harm highway safety?
- Does it explain whether the access is safe and avoids conflicts between users?
- Is there evidence on similar off-street parking or the County Highway Authority’s view?
The cited passage for 40852 gives no highway-safety reasoning, and 30101 states only the Inspector’s conclusion. 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
23 March 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb at front of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I am not persuaded that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Consequently, the proposal would not conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan or with The Framework, as referred to above.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
31 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of a single storey rear extension, lowering of kerb, and creation of front hardstanding and associated hard and soft landscaping including retaining wall.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development to the front of the property on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and area in general; and (ii) highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I am mindful that the Framework confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, 1 APP/A3655/D/23/3331607 Appeal Decision: APP/A3655/D/25/3364418 following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios. Given the proposal is similar to existing off-street parking in the area, and the lack of objection from the County Highway Authority I have not been provided with substantive evidence to confirm that the proposed development would result in unacceptable impact on highway safety or that the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Paragraph 15 · Source pages 3, 4
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
22 September 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new crossover and dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal could have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would conflict with policy CS18 of the [name] (2012) and the advice within the National Planning Policy Framework which together seek to ensure safe and suitable access arrangements, and to minimise conflicts between users.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
25 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a “private driveway with new access & drop kerb onto [address], including parking & turning head, across county council highways land”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, and highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I agree with the appellant that each case is to be considered on its own merits, however, in this instance, there would be a fundamental change to the access arrangements for a single property that is part of a terrace and a defined residential estate served from [address]. Several other properties have a similar relationship to [address], and I share the Council’s concerns that it may set a precedent. This would not be a reason on its own to refuse the proposal, nonetheless, it does add to the already identified harm the development would have on the character and appearance of the area which includes the layout of the estate and its integration with the surrounding area.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
31 July 2025 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
the erection of a 2 storey rear extension, the erection of an infill porch to the front and proposed roof enlargement with 1m increase in ridge height with 6No roof lights and landscaping and driveway modifications to the front to create 3 parking spaces.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development to the front of the property on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and area in general; (ii) the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties; and (iii) highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I am mindful that the Framework confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios. Given the proposal is similar to existing off-street parking in the area, and the lack of objection from the County Highway Authority I have not been provided with substantive evidence to confirm that the proposed development would result in unacceptable impact on highway safety or that the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Paragraph 27 · Source page 5