Appeal 3308790

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has already been carried out as shown on the submitted plans and I have considered the proposal on this basis.

The name of the appellant differs on the application form and the appeal form. I have subsequently received confirmation that the appellant is [appellant], as specified on the application form.

The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety with regard to sight lines and the free flow of traffic.

The site comprises a pair of modern semi-detached dwellings located on the corner of [address] and the A25 [address], with a vehicular access near the junction. Although only a snapshot in time, at my site visit I observed that [address] is a semi-rural lane and the A25 is a busy classified road. No compelling evidence to the contrary has been provided. There is a mirror to assist drivers with navigation on the opposite side of the road, at the A25/[address] junction.

Vehicular access gates and two fence panels have been installed on the corner of the site close to the A25/[address] junction, joined to a pre-existing boundary fence and brick gate pier. Whilst the appellant states that the gates are kept open during the day and only closed at night and occasionally at weekends to protect materials stored in the garage and children playing, this will not necessarily always be the case and there is no mechanism before me to control their operation. Closed gates and the small clearance between the gates and the edge of the carriageway results in cars accessing the site waiting on the road at [address], creating an obstruction for vehicles accessing this road from the A25 and interfering with visibility for drivers egressing from [address] onto the A25.

The Highways Authority has referred to visibility splays which should be maintained at the road junction, and it appears that the development projects forward of the visibility splays shown in the appellant’s conveyance plan. Where it runs alongside the appeal site, the A25 is an unlit relatively straight road with a 40mph speed limit and at my site visit, which I appreciate is only a snapshot in time, I observed a steady flow of traffic. The position and height of the fence panels obstruct visibility for drivers exiting [address] onto the A25 causing danger to occupiers of those vehicles and to traffic travelling along the A25. Although there is a mirror on the opposite side of the junction which aids visibility to drivers joining the A25 from [address], this does not form part of the appeal site or scheme and therefore is not capable of being controlled in the future.

The appellant refers to similar gates in this location in the past, prior to the construction of the two dwellings. As the nature and extent of the previous use is not clear, it is not possible to make a comparison. Furthermore, I do not have full details of the access arrangements required in association with the residential development of the site.

Overall, I conclude that the development harms road safety and the free flow of traffic. This is contrary to Policy SQ8 of the Council’s MDEDPD 20101 where it requires development proposals to not significantly harm highway safety. It also conflicts with paragraphs 110 and 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which require developments to provide safe and suitable access to the site and to not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The proposal conflicts with the Kent County Council Vehicle Crossing Guidance and Self Assessment 2013 where it requires adequate visibility to be provided and gates to be set back from the edge of the carriageway on busy roads and with the [name] 2000 where it requires clear unobstructed vehicle visibility.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.