Appeal 6000476

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the address of the site from the Council’s Decision Notice, which better reflects the location than that used in the application form. The appellant has used the same address in the appeal form and so I am satisfied that no party would be disadvantaged as a result.

The application is in outline, with access to be considered at this stage. As such, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are all reserved for future application. I have determined the appeal on this basis. A plan showing the possible siting of the dwelling has been provided. However, given that the application is in outline, I have treated this plan as being only illustrative.

[name] 2025, after the appeal planning application was determined by the Council, the West Berkshire Local Plan Review (LPR) was adopted as the Development Plan, replacing the West Berkshire District Core Strategy (WBCS). Furthermore, as part of the appeal, the appellant has provided additional information by way of traffic speed information, visibility splays and a drainage rebuttal. The Council and the appellant have been able to comment on these changes and new information. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my determining the appeal on the most up-to-date position.

The main issues are (1) the effect of the proposal on highway safety, and (2) whether the proposal would make adequate provision for drainage.

The site consists of overgrown land between two existing properties. The proposal seeks to erect a new dwelling on the site, with a formalised access taken from [site address] road, including relocation of a telegraph pole. The area is generally semi-rural in appearance. Although a cul-de-sac, the road serves an appreciable number of dwellings beyond the proposed entrance to the appeal site. In addition, it provides access to bridleways.

The Government’s Manual for Streets 1 (MfS1) provides advice in respect of calculating the appropriate visibility splays for accesses. It states that a set back (x-distance) of 2.4 metres should normally be used in most built-up situations. A two-metre minimum may be considered in some very lightly trafficked and slow-speed situations. That said, MfS1 makes clear that, in such circumstances, the front of some vehicles would protrude into the carriageway. It advises that the ability of drivers and cyclists to see this overhang from a reasonable distance, and to manoeuvre around it without undue difficulty, should be considered.

The proposed access would have visibility splays using a two-metre set back. It is common ground that the road is lightly trafficked, and that speeds are substantially below the 60mph limit. The proposal would serve only a single dwelling, and would have space to allow a vehicle to enter and leave the site in forward gear. Many driveways do not offer this, and have substandard visibility. Few accidents involve vehicles turning into or out of driveways, and none are recorded in [site address] in the last five years. However, minor non-injury collisions may not be recorded, and in respect of rural roads Manual for Streets 2 identifies a relationship between collisions and (amongst other things) the number of access connections.

The road hereabouts is particularly narrow, bends downwards, and has tall banking and vegetation close to the carriageway edge. As such, particularly when travelling from the west, vehicles including cyclists would have restricted forward visibility of the proposed access. The narrow width of the road would leave little room to manoeuvre around a car emerging from the site, especially for wider vehicles such as delivery vans. The constrained nature of the road means that reversing would be required if oncoming traffic is encountered, adding to the risks.

Furthermore, although within the stopping distance length of [name] 126, the identified visibility splays are off set from the edge of the road. This approach may be appropriate where opposing carriageways are physically segregated, such as by a traffic island, but this is not the case here. As a result of the off set, the driver of a vehicle leaving the site may not see cyclists or pedestrians who are travelling close to the carriageway edge. MfS1 also requires a vertical height visibility of 600mm as a minimum. This is to ensure adequate sight of children and dogs walking in the carriageway. However, the proposal would have visibility only at 1.05 metres and above.

For the reasons given, I am concerned that the proposal would give rise to a very real potential for collision and conflict with other road users on [site address] , including cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. Alternative measures to reduce traffic speeds have been suggested, such as traffic calming, but it is safer not to create the risk from the outset, rather than to attempt to mitigate it subsequently.

Reprofiling of adjacent embankments may improve visibility, but I have few details of the works, which may be significant and have wider effects for example for biodiversity or to the character and appearance of the area. Reference has been made to an appeal in Cornwall1, but this involved an existing access in active use, and with good forward visibility from each direction, and so is not comparable to the proposal before me.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety. Consequently, it would conflict with LPR policy SP19 and its supporting text, which identifies safety as a key consideration. It would similarly conflict with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which require safe and suitable access, and no unacceptable impact on highway safety.

There is no dispute that adequate disposal of surface and foul water is necessary, and that infiltration would be unsuitable, given the site ground conditions. As such, it is proposed that surface water and treated foul water would be discharged into a watercourse. This is located on land outside of the application site, but within the control of the appellant. Common ground between the Council and the appellant has been established regarding drainage calculations, rainfall data and the surface water discharge rate.

However, the route of the carrier pipe from the site to the watercourse would be through dense woodland. Full details of this arrangement have not been established. As a result, it is possible that installation and maintenance of the pipe could harm tree roots, or that the route would be unsuitable because of root ingress, structural collapse or restricted access. There is no dispute that a ditch receiving treated water should maintain a continuous flow of water, but it has not been confirmed that this is available here. Existing dwellings will already have foul water outfalls, although I have few details of their arrangements, or whether they would be suitable for the proposal.

As an outline application, it would be possible to impose planning conditions preventing the commencement of development until the foul and surface water arrangements have been approved by the Council. Conditions could also require the implementation and maintenance of the arrangements subsequently approved. Even so, the pipe would have to traverse a long distance and steep gradients through the woodland. In the absence of a more detailed assessment, I am concerned that such an arrangement would not prove workable or satisfactory, including in the long term.

Moreover, the potential effects of the proposal on the woodland and its biodiversity should be established before planning permission is granted. The submitted Ecological Impact Assessment did not conduct a formal condition assessment of the woodland area. As a result, although some ecological enhancements are proposed, the Assessment does not appear to have fully considered the effects of the drainage pipe through the woodland, or its possible effect on species therein, either during construction or when the pipe is in operation.

For these reasons, even at outline stage, I am not convinced that appropriate measures to manage flooding have been demonstrated. Consequently, the proposal would not make adequate provision for drainage. Therefore, it would 1 PINS reference APP/D0840/W/23/3314947 conflict with LPR policy SP6, which requires no detrimental impact on the flow of fluvial flood water, surface water or runoff due to high groundwater levels.

At the time that the planning application was determined, the Council was unable to demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land in accordance with the Framework. However, following adoption of the LPR, the appellant does not contest the Council’s position that it now does have an adequate supply. It follows that paragraph 11 of the Framework is not engaged.

Nevertheless, the proposal would add an additional dwelling to housing supply. Its construction would make a positive economic contribution locally, for instance to the building industry. Its future occupiers would generate social and economic advantages. The proposal would deliver [name] benefits, would result in the efficient use of land, and could be delivered quickly. Nevertheless, as a single dwelling, these benefits would be modest and so I give them limited positive weight.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.