Appeal 3358844

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Council has determined that the proposed development would not be an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. I see no reason to disagree, and I shall therefore determine the appeal on this basis.

In the light of the foregoing, I consider that there are two main issues in this case: • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises [name] a detached chalet bungalow located towards the front of the triangular shaped plot. There is a further residential dwelling towards the rear. The application drawings only show one current cross-over serving [name]. However, as I observed there are two vehicular cross-overs to [address].

The appellant proposes a new third access to serve the dwelling to the rear of the site. The proposed access would be 3.5 metres wide and sited just to the north of the most northern of the two existing points of access to [name]. The new cross over would be located part way between two bends in the road.

[address] at this point has a 40mph speed limit. However, given the location and the characteristics of the road I agree with the Highway Authority that faster vehicle speeds are likely here. A speed survey has not been provided so that actual road speed cannot be accurately assessed.

Visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 53.0 meters are proposed to the south of the junction and 2.4 metres x 93.0 metres to the north. Assuming that vehicles are traveling at the speed limit of 40 mph I would have typically expected visibility splays of at least 2.4 x 65 metres in both directions. However, without a speed survey it cannot be assumed that visibility splays of even 2.4 x 65 metres, if achievable would be adequate in this case.

In addition, while I agree that the proposed location of the access to the north of the current access would offer slightly better visibility than the current northern crossover to [name], without the necessary supporting speed survey, I am not satisfied that the proposed visibility splays would be adequate to serve a new crossover.

Given that there are two dwellings on the site the formation of a further access would not in itself result in an intensification of vehicle movements on or off the site. However, a third cross over in close proximity to the existing two might well, particularly if on occasion all three driveways were to be in use at the same time, lead to some confusion for road users entering or exiting the site.

I therefore conclude on the first main issue that the proposed additional access as designed would be likely to result in significant harm to the safety of road users at this point. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the objectives of National Planning Policy Framework, Policy INF1 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2020-2039 (LP) and the objectives of Surrey Local Transport Plan 2022-2032 as they relate maintaining highway safety.

The Council when determining the application were concerned about the development’s potential impact on existing trees, dense hedging and shrubs, which is part of the established character of [address]. However, it was apparent on my visit that the area around the proposed access had already been cleared of the original mature soft landscaping and replaced with a new conifer hedge.

Although, the original trees, hedging and shrubs have been recently removed it was evident from what I saw on site that the original planting would have been both mature and extensive. I do not consider that the recently planted young conifer hedge, by reason of the chosen species of hedging, more often found in sub-urban gardens, would even when it matures be an appropriate substitute in this rural location.

I therefore conclude in respect of the second main issue that the loss of the original landscaping without an appropriate scheme of replacement would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

To allow the development would therefore be contrary to the aims of [name] EN4 and EN9 that require, amongst other things that all new development makes a positive contribution to the local character and takes the opportunity to improve the quality of local landscape.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.