Appeal 3357370

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development on the application form for planning permission includes a significant amount of the history of the site. Other than for the words ‘retention of’ which is not an act of development, I have therefore used in the banner header above and in the determination of this appeal, the description of development adopted by the Council. Having visited the site it is noted that the vehicular access has been constructed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.

The proposal is for the creation of a new vehicular access to serve [site address] (No.2). The new access is onto [address], which is the main road that runs through the village and has a 30mph speed limit. The access is also adjacent to a bus stop and on the development side of the road there is no public footpath.

Any vehicle exiting No.2 would have to pull into the carriage way to see traffic approaching on the far side of the road from the west due to the neighbour’s hedge. A similar situation exists in relation to viewing oncoming traffic approaching from the east, due to a mature hedge is located around 1m back from the edge of the highway along the side boundary of the neighbouring property.

In the absence of any speed data for [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site, the Council is seeking a visibility splays of 59m (Y dimension) in both directions. In addition, the Council is seeking a set back from the carriageway of 2.4m (X dimension), to allow the driver to see in both directions without the exciting vehicle entering onto the carriageway.

The submitted drawing shows visibility splays 17m looking eastwards and a 3.5m looking westwards. Following the site visit, it is evident that the positioning of neighbouring hedges would severely limit the ability of an exiting driver to see oncoming traffic in either direction until at least part of a car is on the carriageway. As these hedges are not located on the appeal site or land that the appellant owns, there is no control over their size and height.

It is accepted that once the driver has manoeuvred onto the carriageway of [address] than the view on oncoming traffic in both directions is good. However, this does not overcome the risk of the overhang of the emerging vehicle partially obstructing the highway and forcing oncoming drivers to avoid a collision by either rapidly stopping, slowing down or taking evasive action by driving onto the opposite of the road. It is also likely that any approaching cyclist on the near side of the road will be keeping closer to the edge of the carriageway and thus would be at more risk of collision with an overhanging car bonnet.

While it is noted there have been no collisions within the last 5 years this does not mean that the access is safe. Only collisions that result in a personal injury or are reported to the police are recorded. As a substandard access as the likelihood of an incident remains significantly increased.

Manual for Streets 2 does support the reduction of the X figure to 2m on some slow speed roads. However, as detailed above there is an absence of detailed speed data demonstrating that vehicles in both directions are traveling slowly enough to safely stop or manoeuvre around a vehicle exiting No.2. In addition, it should not be assumed that all drivers could lean forward 1m to achieve a 2m X figure, for example this may not be achievable for the elderly or those with a disability.

It is noted that the access only serves one dwelling and movements in and out will be limited. However, given the extent of inadequate visibility, the resulting safety hazard is significant and, in my judgement, the risk it poses to safety is not reduced to an acceptable level by this factor.

My attention has been drawn to other accesses in general along [address]. However, I have not been provided with details of the circumstances of how each of these came to exist. Some, for example, may pre-date the requirement for planning permission and others may not have been the subject of a planning application. Accordingly, the existence of other accesses with visibility splays that may be less than that sought by national guidance does not justify the development. I give this argument, therefore, limited weight in my decision.

For the reasons above the development does not comply with Policy 29 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Local Plan Part 1 2023, as it does not provide a safe and suitable access. The proposal also does not comply with National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraph 116 as in my judgement there would be unacceptable harm to highway safety.

The Council has stated that there is a designated heritage asset a few doors down from the proposal referred to as the [name] (Grade II Listed). The appeal site is located to the southwest and is separated from the listed building by several houses. It forms no part of the Council’s case that the settling of the designated heritage asse has been harmed by the development and I agree with this assessment.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.