Appeal 3352361

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/23/2923/HHF for Two storey extension and roof alterations at [site address] , [site address] Road, [site address] , Essex [postcode] granted on 22 March 2024 by Uttlesford District Council is varied by deleting Condition 4.

Planning permission has been granted for the works outlined above. The planning permission included a condition restricting access via [address] for the duration of construction works. The Council considered the condition to be necessary in the interest of highway safety. The appellant, however, objects to the condition as they consider it to be unreasonable and unnecessary. The Council has subsequently set out that it has no objection to the removal of the condition.

The main issue is whether Condition 4 is reasonable and necessary in the interest of highway safety.

Condition 4 was originally imposed in the interest of highway safety, with further reasoning set out in the officer’s report referencing the need to minimise inconvenience to the neighbouring residents within [address]. Comments have also been received from neighbours in connection with safety concerns.

An established vehicular access exists to the east of the appeal site, connecting it with [address], [address] and ultimately the B1383. [address] and [address] are constructed of brick pavers and are used for access to, and in places parking for, adjoining dwellings. At the time of my site visit, I witnessed one vehicular movement within [address]. Although this was only a snapshot in time, the roads here are undoubtedly quiet in terms of traffic movements. I am also aware that the appeal site can also be accessed from [site address] Road.

The reason for Condition 4 relates specifically to highway safety. [name] acknowledge the concerns raised by residents in this respect, and do not doubt that use of the road by construction vehicles would be atypical, there appears to be no objection from the highway authority in respect of highway safety. In addition, the Council has, since the decision was issued, confirmed that it has no objection to the removal of this condition.

From the evidence before me, and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree. Access to the appeal site is physically possible via [address] and any traffic using this route would not be travelling at high speeds. This is, in part, due to the layout of the housing development. Moreover, the approved development is not a major scheme, it is a domestic extension, and any disruption would be limited, taking place over a short period of time. In all likelihood, this would involve only limited numbers of construction vehicles. This is irrespective of the argued private ownership and ongoing maintenance of the road, which are private matters.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the removal of the subject condition would not result in harm to highway safety. Accordingly, the relevant tests in the Framework and the PPG have not been met in this case and the condition is neither reasonable nor necessary. There are no relevant development plan policies before me which conflict with this.

I note reference to previous planning permissions and alleged ongoing planning matters. It is not for me to re-determine previous decisions or to deal with alleged unauthorised works.

In respect of comments raised around noise and disturbance to residents within the surrounding area, this, as set out above, would be minimal by reason of the scale and nature of the approved development (an extension). Moreover, this would take place over a relatively limited period of time.

The original conditions, aside from the disputed condition, are reimposed for clarity and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude that the disputed condition is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of highway safety. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. I will vary the original permission by deleting the disputed condition. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR