Appeal 3328815

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to retain existing new-build boundary wall at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 23/37040/HOU dated 27 January 2023 and the plan Ref:372/PD/100 submitted with it.

The application seeks permission to retain works which have already been carried out. No plans have been provided to show the position prior to these works and in consequence I have determined the matter according to my observation of visibility and movement of traffic at the time of my site visit. The appeal site abuts, but lies outwith, the perimeter of the Weston Conservation Area (No.5). Although the Council refer to suggestions for hedgerow planting along the perimeter wall this would be on land outwith the application site boundary. In any event the Council indicate that the works have no harmful impact on heritage assets which, having regard to Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, agrees with my own observations. I therefore consider the main issue to be:-

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.

The appellant has constructed a new boundary wall with entrance gate in a location which is close to the junction of [site address] with the A518 [address] which, at this point lies within a 30mph speed limit being within the settlement of Weston. The junction is close to a crossing over the Trent and [name] which creates a crest in the road and consequent limited forward visibility for users travelling in either direction; this encourages a degree of caution for users of the main road at this point. Although a busy highway, and noting the central markings which prevent overtaking for those approaching from the west, the geometry of the junction is such that any road user intending to enter [site address] from the A518 in either direction will do so at a low speed. The elevation of the A518 at the canal bridge crossing allows a better view of the area affected by the works for users intending to turning right into [site address] than that enjoyed by those approaching from the west due to the tight entry radius off the main road. However in neither case is it likely that vehicles would be travelling at such speed that they would be unable to stop promptly in the area of [site address] which fronts the appeal site if confronted by a vehicle emerging from the appeal site or, for that matter, from the narrow section of [site address] beyond the appeal site. This is because there is sufficient opportunity and width for vehicles to pause or pass and manoeuvre around oncoming or emerging vehicles in the relevant part of the highway.

[site address] narrows to a single lane as it wraps round the application site such that visibility to the left for users emerging from [site address] is limited. Further, forward visibility for users of [site address] approaching this point and the junction beyond is equally limited which would ensure equal caution. Consequently, whilst normal expectation of visibility cannot be met, the specific circumstances and layout of the highway around the site entrance encourage sufficient caution such that the risk of collision between highway users, both motorised and non-motorised, is low.

I therefore conclude for the reasons given and having regard to all matters raised, that no harm to highway safety arises from the development which is the subject of this appeal and identified on the plans submitted with it. Therefore no conflict arises with policy T2 of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2014 which seeks safe and adequate access nor, in consequence, with the development plan as a whole and on that basis the appeal succeeds. As the works have been carried out no timing condition is necessary.