Appeal 3328833

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on highway safety and on the natural environment.

[address] North is a classified road, the A6, and carries around twenty-thousand vehicles per-day through Stockport. It is clearly well-used, carrying an obviously significant amount of traffic even during non-peak hours. The presence of bus, taxi and cycle lanes, in operation during long morning and afternoon periods further highlights how busy the road is.

The appellant suggests that even if they were to move their gates further back as suggested by the Council, larger vehicles may still temporarily obstruct the highway when waiting to open the gates. I accept this. Such disruption would however be infrequent when compared to the day-to-day comings-and-goings of the occupiers. As such, it is to my mind entirely appropriate to ensure that there is sufficient space for a car to stop short of the gates, but off the highway to operate the gates, particularly given the amount of traffic on the road.

[name] acknowledge the case put by the appellant, the position of the Highway Authority is clear, in that a situation where vehicles stop on the highway is unacceptable and would put the safety and operation of the A6 and its users at risk. There is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that the proposal would not give rise to such risk. In particular, I cannot be certain that vehicles accessing the site would cross the footway at an angle to clear the highway as shown on the plans. I acknowledge the intention to use electric gates, but do not consider that their use could appropriately be controlled or enforced through the use of planning conditions, such that it would overcome my concerns and those of the Highway Authority.

Whilst the appellant has noted that the distance from the road to the gate sought by the Highway Authority is not set down in policy, it is clearly based on technical reasoning and a legitimately held concern over highway safety. Highway safety effects do find expression in the development plan, with policy seeking to avoid development with any adverse impact on safety, and that development provides safe, practical and well-designed access arrangements. I cannot be sure that the appeal proposal does all of this.

I note the gates on other driveways nearby referred to by the appellant. Consistency in the planning process is important and like cases should be decided in a like manner, however, I do not have information before me to know how, when or why those driveway arrangements came into being. Given that those driveways and gates also have a different relationship to junctions and the surrounding highway, I also have not been presented with sufficient evidence to show that their existence should alter my conclusions on this proposal.

As such, I find that the proposal would cause harm to highway safety and would therefore conflict with Policy T-3 of the [name], March 2011 (the [name]) and national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure highway safety in the promotion of sustainable transport.

Following the Council’s decision on the application, the appellant removed the trees and hedging on their site to which the second reason for refusal referred. However, it is clear from the comments of the Council’s Senior Arboriculture and [name] that their concerns also relate to trees on the neighbouring site. As such, this matter remains a main issue in this appeal. Although the loss of trees on the site can no longer be prevented, it appears that the issue of the effect of the proposal on trees in neighbouring properties could be addressed and mitigated against through the imposition of conditions.

As such, although the uncontrolled loss of the trees and hedging on the site will undoubtedly have caused some harm to the natural environment, it appears that the effect of the development on what remains could be controlled such that it would not cause further harm. In that respect the proposal would not conflict with policies CS-8, SIE-1 and SIE-3 of the [name], or saved policies NE1.1, NE1.2 and NE1.3 of Stockport's Unitary Development Plan adopted May 2006. These seek, amongst other things, to protect the natural environment and biodiversity.

The appellant has set out the need for the proposal on the grounds of safety, security and privacy. I do not seek to suggest that any of these factors are not material to my decision, or that they are unimportant. However, I am not persuaded that the appeal proposal is the only way to achieve them. In this, I also note that the local planning authority did suggest further amendments to the proposal which could address their concerns.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan with regard to its effect on highway safety. Whilst it could be acceptable with regard to the natural environment, I find that the highway safety harm is so significant that it is not outweighed. There are no other material considerations of such weight to indicate that a decision be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal should therefore be dismissed.