Appeal 3328607

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development given in the banner heading above is taken from the application form, however I have removed reference to an earlier application since this is not a description of development.

During the course of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. There are no substantive changes relevant to the appeal before me and therefore no interested parties would be prejudiced by my consideration of the 2023 version of the Framework.

The main issue is the effect of the development proposed on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility from the proposed access.

The appeal relates to a property to the eastern edge of [site address] , also known as the A267. This part of [site address] is a rural road with a 60mph speed limit. Speed surveys were undertaken by the appellant on two separate mid-week days in March 2023. However, both main parties report obstructions on the highway around that time, which could have prevented the free-flow of traffic at the time of those surveys. As such, it cannot be established with certainty that traffic on [site address] generally moves at the lower speeds suggested by the appellant, nor that shorter visibility splays would be safe as a consequence.

Even if the lower traffic speeds were accepted, there is dispute between the parties regarding the positions used in the illustrated visibility splays. The south facing visibility splay is shown to the centreline of [site address] , rather than the nearside kerb line. While the curve in the road around the appeal site may deter some from overtaking, there remains the possibility that it may still occur and that traffic may cross the centreline of [site address] . Neither is the speed limit of [site address] likely to deter overtaking. As such, the justification for assessing visibility to the centreline is not accepted.

The appellant has assessed visibility from a position of 2m from the back of the highway, which is less than the typical distance of 2.4m between the driver and the front of the vehicle. Given the speed of the traffic on [site address] and the varied size of vehicles which may use the new access, I cannot be satisfied that this is an appropriate point from which to assess visibility from the access.

In combination, the above matters cast significant doubt on the ability of the access to provide a safe level of visibility onto [site address] . Failure to do so could cause vehicles to emerge into oncoming traffic without a clear view of approaching vehicles, increasing risk of collisions and creating unsafe highway conditions. The consequences would be significant and long lasting.

In turn, the proposal would conflict with Policy TR3 of the Wealden Local Plan 1998 and Strategic Planning Objective SPO12 of the Wealden District Local Plan Core Strategy 2013, which together relate to highway safety and traffic conditions. It would also conflict with the Framework, which allows for the refusal of planning permission on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

I note the absence of reported accidents on the highway and other residential accesses on to [site address] in the surrounding area. However, I do not have details of the circumstances of those accesses and, even if they did provide a substandard level of visibility, I do not find that the presence of potentially unsafe conditions elsewhere would provide a justification to do so here. Neither has it been substantiated that greater flexibility should be applied in a rural location. The provision of a vehicle charging point at [site address] would be a benefit of the scheme, however this would not sufficiently outweigh the harm to highway safety.

The lack of vehicular access to [site address] results in the need for the appellant’s vehicles, and any delivery and servicing vehicles, to stop elsewhere, where they may cause a hazard to traffic on [site address] . However, it has not been demonstrated that this creates worse conditions for highway safety than the proposed development, nor has it been demonstrated that other solutions are not possible. The appellant has brought my attention to an appeal decision relating to access to the site in May 20221, however this relates to an enforcement notice and does little to suggest why this appeal scheme should be accepted.

The appeal site is close to the grade II listed building of [address], of which the setting includes the highway of [site address] . The proposal would integrate into the character of [site address] , which comprises some other accesses and openings at irregular intervals. As such the proposal would preserve the setting of this designated heritage asset. This does not, however, amount to a benefit of the proposal. 1 APP/C1435/C/20/3250601

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. The appeal is therefore dismissed.