Appeal 6001336

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of means of access to a highway at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference: 1273/25, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL/5TD/SD100 – Existing and [name]; PL/5TD/SD101 – [name]; PL/5TD/SD102 – [name]; Block Plan - [site address] ; Location Plan - [site address] .

There is a variance between the description of development cited on the planning application form and that of both the decision notice and appeal form. The revision removes superfluous text. The application was publicised on the basis of the revised description and assumed by the appellant thereafter. I have therefore relied upon the revised description for the purpose of my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the safe and efficient operation of the highway, with particular regard to its position relative to the junction with [address].

The appeal site is located at the eastern end of a long residential street comprised of semi-detached and terraced properties, most of which have paved front driveways. There are a number of crossovers along [address], including adjacent to the appeal site at No. 3. [address] has a 20mph speed limit and there are traffic calming measures near the appeal site. The site is a corner plot at the junction between [address] and [address] and has a boundary wall parallel with the latter.

The proposal is for a crossover to provide vehicular access to the appeal site. While a crossover could, in principle, lead to additional vehicle movements, no significant increase in traffic to the site has been asserted by the Council.

In terms of impacts on highway safety, the front boundary wall is low in height and would not affect visibility of highway users entering or exiting [address]. Furthermore, the 20mph speed limit on [address] and the traffic calming measures in the vicinity of the appeal site would serve to reduce traffic speed and thereby provide users of the highway greater opportunity to observe and respond to vehicular movements relating to the appeal proposal.

Both parties refer to the London Borough of Redbridge Policy for [name] (2023), a guidance document which provides criteria for assessing crossover proposals. The proposal would result in a slight shortfall against standards in the guidance document, which seeks a specific minimum separation distance between crossovers and junctions. However, I find that in this particular instance the proposed shortfall will not lead to an arrangement which would be prejudicial to highway safety. Accordingly, I give very limited weight to the conflict with this guidance.

Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) states that applications for development should ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Paragraph 116 states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios. The proposal would be consistent with the Framework.

The appellant cites an allowed appeal for a crossover located elsewhere in the Council area, and examples of permitted crossovers elsewhere on [address]. [name] have found no harm would arise from this appeal proposal, the existence of other examples of crossover arrangements has no bearing on my determination.

In conclusion, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the safe and efficient operation of the highway, with particular regard to its position relative to the junction with [address].

Policy T2 of the London Plan (2021) requires development proposals to demonstrate how they will deliver improvements that support healthy streets, which includes consideration of safety issues, while Policy T4 states that development proposals should not increase road danger. In view of my findings, the appeal proposal is in accordance with those policies.

The Council’s reason for refusal cites Policies LP22 and LP23 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (March 2018) (the Local Plan), and Policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021). As the main issue of this appeal relates to highway safety rather than the principle of promoting sustainable transport or facilitating car parking, these Local Plan policies are not directly relevant to the appeal proposal and as such there is no conflict with the development plan in those regards.

The standard commencement condition and a plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. I have inserted the plan titles into the Council’s suggested plans condition in the interests of precision, for the avoidance of any doubt on which plans are approved.

As the appeal proposal does not trigger fire safety concerns, reference to the [name] is not relevant to the appeal proposal and therefore its inclusion does not meet the prescribed tests. I have removed reference to it from the list of approved plans.

I have found that the proposal would be in accordance with the Development Plan read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.