Appeal 6000782

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was changed with the agreement of the appellant from that in the application form, which I am satisfied provides a more accurate and concise description of development.

The Council’s Reason for Refusal does not identify conflict with the development plan, in referring only to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Nonetheless, the Council’s officer report also identifies conflict with policy CSP.1 of the Forest of [name] [2012](CS), policy AP.4 of the Forest of Dean Allocations Plan [2018](AP), policy LYD TRAN1 of the Lydney Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and Manual for [name]. I consider that these policies are relevant to the proposal and have therefore taken them into consideration. Although the proposal is also identified as raising conflict with AP policy AP.1, I do not find this policy to be specifically relevant to the scheme.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety, particularly with respect to the safe use of the access.

[address] is a residential street on a hill, with relatively narrow footways. It is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. The site has an existing driveway that would be served by the proposed access. The driveway slopes downhill into the site and is adjacent to a neighbour’s boundary. Due to this context, motorists leaving the driveway would need to look to the right, through the neighbour’s garden, to see if it would be safe to exit.

Manual for Streets [2007], DfT guidance, requires a visibility splay of 2.4m by 43m for an access onto a highway with a 30mph speed restriction. Such a visibility splay for the appeal site cannot be provided, due to obstructions caused by local topography and planting within the front garden of the neighbouring plot.

Whilst the appellant asserts that the neighbour is willing to either trim the obstructing tree or remove it fully, this off-site alteration cannot be secured by the proposal. Furthermore, nothing would prevent the neighbouring front garden from changing over time including the addition of tall plants along the frontage preventing most on- plot southeast views. The danger of this hazardous manoeuvre would be exacerbated if a motorist entered the drive in a forward gear and had to reverse out of the site.

Accordingly, the proposed access would not operate in a safe manner, to the detriment of highway safety. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with CS policy CSP.1, AP policy AP.4, NP policy LYD TRAN1 and the Framework. These policies require, among other matters, for development to consider whether existing infrastructure is adequate, for it to address transport implications and for development to not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appellant has identified local examples of dropped kerbs. I note that [address] benefits from an access. However, this appears to provide safe and unobstructed views in both directions. Access points have also been drawn to my attention at [address] and [address]. These are close to the junction of [address] and seem to share some of the characteristics with the appeal site. However, visibility seems generally better around these access points than is evident around the appeal site, and in any event each case must be considered on its own merits.

The appellant identifies that the alterations to the front garden, including the provision of a driveway and access, would enable easier highway access for refuse bins. However, this benefit could be provided without the need for a new vehicular access and without causing the identified harm to highway safety.

The proposal would allow the appellant to install a charging point for an electric vehicle, which would be more convenient and practical than on-street charging. Also, it would reduce on-street parking pressure, potentially improving the free-flow of traffic on the highway. These benefits weigh in favour of the proposal but would not be of such magnitude as to outweigh the conflict found with the development plan.

For the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.