England-wide appeal evidence
Highway safety in planning appeals
Compare source-linked planning appeal decisions from across England where the Inspector’s main issue matched the fixed “Highway safety” evidence query, by an exact configured phrase or close semantic meaning.
This page compares planning appeal decisions. It is not a count of planning-application refusal reasons and does not predict what would happen in a different case.
- Matched decision families
- 1,417
- 1,420 appeal records represented
- Matched appeal records
- 1,420
- 379 allowed · 1,019 dismissed · 22 other
- Decision-text coverage
- 24,060 of 83,947
- 24,107 of 91,212 current appeal records
Local appeal evidence
Find evidence for your council or planning authority
Choose the council or planning authority that decided the application. Local pages are shown only where the published evidence snapshot meets the evidence and source checks.
Choose from 90 councils and planning authorities
- Ashfield District Council6 matched decision families
- Ashford Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Bedford Borough Council12 matched decision families
- Birmingham City Council12 matched decision families
- Blackpool Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council18 matched decision families
- Bracknell Forest Council7 matched decision families
- Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council11 matched decision families
- Castle Point Borough Council9 matched decision families
- Central Bedfordshire Council15 matched decision families
- Chelmsford City Council18 matched decision families
- City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council8 matched decision families
- Colchester City Council6 matched decision families
- Cornwall Council6 matched decision families
- Coventry City Council39 matched decision families
- Dacorum Borough Council6 matched decision families
- Dartford Borough Council8 matched decision families
- Derbyshire Dales District Council5 matched decision families
- Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Dorset Council6 matched decision families
- Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council10 matched decision families
- East Hertfordshire District Council7 matched decision families
- East Riding of Yorkshire Council7 matched decision families
- Elmbridge Borough Council6 matched decision families
- Epping Forest District Council5 matched decision families
- Epsom and Ewell Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Folkestone and Hythe Council5 matched decision families
- Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council6 matched decision families
- Gravesham Borough Council28 matched decision families
- Hart District Council6 matched decision families
- Hertsmere Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Isle of Wight Council6 matched decision families
- Kirklees Council5 matched decision families
- Leeds City Council32 matched decision families
- Liverpool City Council13 matched decision families
- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Barnet14 matched decision families
- London Borough of Bexley25 matched decision families
- London Borough of Brent7 matched decision families
- London Borough of Bromley22 matched decision families
- London Borough of Croydon37 matched decision families
- London Borough of Ealing13 matched decision families
- London Borough of Enfield34 matched decision families
- London Borough of Havering22 matched decision families
- London Borough of Hillingdon17 matched decision families
- London Borough of Hounslow22 matched decision families
- London Borough of Lambeth5 matched decision families
- London Borough of Redbridge25 matched decision families
- London Borough of Richmond upon Thames7 matched decision families
- Luton Borough Council10 matched decision families
- Maldon District Council10 matched decision families
- Manchester City Council13 matched decision families
- Medway Council7 matched decision families
- Middlesbrough Borough Council13 matched decision families
- North Northamptonshire Council7 matched decision families
- North Yorkshire Council7 matched decision families
- Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council10 matched decision families
- Oxford City Council5 matched decision families
- Peterborough City Council7 matched decision families
- Portsmouth City Council5 matched decision families
- Reigate and Banstead Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames14 matched decision families
- Rushcliffe Borough Council8 matched decision families
- Rutland County Council6 matched decision families
- Sheffield City Council10 matched decision families
- Shropshire Council14 matched decision families
- Slough Borough Council15 matched decision families
- Somerset Council7 matched decision families
- South Gloucestershire Council12 matched decision families
- Southampton City Council6 matched decision families
- Southend-on-Sea Borough Council8 matched decision families
- St Albans City and District Council7 matched decision families
- Stafford Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Swale Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council5 matched decision families
- Thanet District Council6 matched decision families
- Three Rivers District Council7 matched decision families
- Thurrock Council14 matched decision families
- Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council6 matched decision families
- Torbay Council12 matched decision families
- Uttlesford District Council10 matched decision families
- Wakefield Metropolitan District Council10 matched decision families
- Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council6 matched decision families
- Warrington Borough Council7 matched decision families
- Warwick District Council5 matched decision families
- West Berkshire Council5 matched decision families
- Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council6 matched decision families
- Wiltshire Council12 matched decision families
- Woking Borough Council7 matched decision families
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
9 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the creation of a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Whilst any assessment can be subjective, given the existing arrangements and the relatively lengthy period during which the parking space has been in use, I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
2 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
“Demolish outbuildings, erect new extension for disabled relatives, form garage at street level and landscaping works”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The one main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I favour a pragmatic approach and conclude that the proposal would not materially harm highway safety. As such, I find no conflict with UDP Policy H14 (d), which requires proposals to provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking, advice in the SPG, or Government policy in paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework, (the Framework) which says developments should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
19 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as a ‘new crossover’.
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
This would be unsatisfactory in terms of highway safety and conflict with Policy 32 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP) which seeks to ensure that the potential impact of any development on road safety is not significantly adversely affected and Policy T4(f) of the London Plan (2021) (LoP) which seeks to ensure that development proposals do not increase road danger. The Council has also identified a conflict with Policy 30 of the LP, which relates to parking provisions for new developments. However, as the proposal concerns a vehicular crossover serving an existing use, the policy is not directly applicable in this instance.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
18 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a new dwelling and associated works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As a result, while I do not find harm in relation to the alignment or condition of the lane, its narrowness at its northern end, and the lack of visibility at the junction with [address] presents an unacceptable risk to highway safety. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM05 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011 – 2031, which in part, seeks to maintain highway safety for all users.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
22 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
installation of the car turntable at the front garden, amendment to the garden front fence and gate and removal of Norway Maple Tree.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would thus have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would conflict with Policies TR4, TR5 and TR8 of the New Local Plan Review July 2024 (the Local Plan). These policies, among other provisions, seek to resist pavement crossovers and forecourt parking, and ensure that developments improve the visual, functional and inclusive quality of streets, encourage travel by sustainable modes, and do not increase congestion. Though not referred to explicitly in the Decision Notice, the proposal would also conflict with Policy TR6 of the Local Plan, referred to in the [name]. This policy, among other provisions, states that new development must incorporate measures to improve road safety, and in particular the safety of walking and cycling. It also seeks to resist development that compromises road safety, and ensure development does not reduce access to, or the attractiveness of, existing footways and pathways used by the public.
Paragraph 14 · Source pages 2, 3