Appeal 3291009

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

[site address] is a detached dwelling located at the junction of [site address] (A58) and [address]. There is no vehicular access to [address] from [site address] at this point.

The proposed sliding gate would be around 1.75 m in height and made of wood effect composite material. It would be positioned to the rear of two low stone gate pillars and between the ends of existing box hedges at either side of the access, around 2 m in height. Although the Council considers that the proposal could result in pedestrian safety issues it seems to me that there would be little difference for pedestrians using the footway between the current open access situation and a gated access.

[site address] is an important busy arterial road which links Halifax and the motorway network. It has white chevron markings in the centre of the carriageway near the appeal site. It is likely that occasions will occur when the gates would be closed and approaching vehicles would need to gain access. Even if the gates could be operated by drivers automatically it would take time for them to open. This would result in vehicles waiting on the road carriageway whilst the gates open, forming an obstruction to the free flow of traffic and creating a situation where other vehicles may try to overtake.

The Council’s Highway section advises that the proposed gate when open, being around 1.75 m in height, would also have a detrimental effect on the visibility splay for vehicles entering [site address] from the appeal site. The appellant indicates that the gate would be hidden behind the box hedges when in the open position, thereby not affecting the visibility splay. Although that may be the case, I consider that because vehicles would not be able to immediately pull off [site address] to enter the property, as is currently the case with no gate in place, the proposed sliding gate would cause unacceptable detrimental effects for highway safety.

The appellant considers that the principle of installing a gate “is surely not a matter for planning as described”. Nevertheless, a gate exceeding 1 m in height next to a highway used by vehicles or footpath of such a highway would require permission and the Council determined that a planning application was necessary.

The Council considered that the proposed gate would cause no harm to the setting of the listed building of the former [name]. I see no reason to disagree in view of the separation distance and limited scale of the proposal.

I consider that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on highway safety, contrary to policy BE5 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan which requires, amongst other things, that the design of accesses should ensure the safe and free flow of traffic in the interest of highway safety.

I have taken all other matters raised into account. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.