Appeal 3333173

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework) was published on 19 December 2023. The amendments made did not have a material bearing upon the main issue in this appeal, and it was therefore not necessary to seek comments from the main parties upon it. [name] have referred to the Framework, it is that of the December 2023 version.

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

The appeal property forms part of a relatively new group of dwellings where vehicular access is via a small cul-de-sac leading from [address] (B4091). The appeal property has a domestic garage at the head of the cul-de-sac, integrated with the host property.

The appellant considers that the cul-de-sac is both narrow and congested and provides little room for her elderly relative to get into and out of the appellant’s car when she is brought to visit her. However, on my site visit, I was able to see, although it was only an instant in time, that the existing vehicular access Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/D/23/3333173 was not congested and had been designed to give access to the appellant’s garage and drive in front of it.

The proposal is to create a second parking space using an existing grassed track leading from [address] and located immediately on the boundary of the house and lying between it and the [name]. The part of the grassed track to be used in this way would be given a gravel surface.

The host property and the proposed track are very close to the inside of a bend in the road (B4091). I cannot be sure that the proposed use of the track would permit drivers to enter and leave in forward gear so that they would have to manoeuvre on the highway, to the considerable detriment of highway safety at this point. Given the closeness of the bend, this type of arrangement has the potential to cause an accident for those motorists who would not be aware of such manoeuvring taking place in this area.

I appreciate that while there are yellow lines around the nearby bend to control parking, there are no such limitations at the proposed access or outside the host property. However, any such parking would not involve the same amount of manoeuvring on the highway as would the use of the proposed access.

Furthermore, the proposed access is used as a pedestrian thoroughfare, and while vehicle speeds along it would be likely to be low because of the limited width, drivers are likely to have to reverse at some point along it, to the detriment of pedestrian safety.

Therefore, even though the Highway Authority, for reasons unknown, has not made any comment upon the proposal, I conclude that the development would be contrary to policy SWDP4 of the South Worcester Development Plan 2016 (DP), in so far as it requires compliance with the Worcester County Council’s Streetscape Design Guide 2022 (DG), and which in turn aims to provide easy and safe access between highways, car parking areas and dwellings for everyone. It would also fail to accord with chapter 9 of the Framework which advocates that proposed development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, and which also requires that development provides safe and suitable access to the site for all users. For the same reasons, it would not comply with the broad aim of Manual for Streets in relation to highway safety.

The proposed access adjoins two heritage assets including the adjoining [name], which is [name] listed. Its setting is one of an open landscaped area with trees and other landscaping on its periphery and which defines and separates it from the existing access road proposed for use by the development.

The local planning authority’s Conservation Officer considers that the proposal would have no adverse impact upon the setting of two adjacent designated heritage assets of which the Memorial is the nearest, and given the separating Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/D/23/3333173 landscaped area, I have no reason to disagree. Its listing also describes it as being within a group which includes the [name] listed [name], though the latter is visually separate and unseen from the proposed development site and the proposed development would have no adverse impact upon its setting.

The above considerations are of neutral consequence and do not alter or outweigh the harm which I have found in respect of the main issue.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.