Appeal 6001487

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted on 1 October 2021 for the construction of a two-storey building comprising a ground floor commercial unit and a self-contained maisonette (the “original permission”).

[name] 2025, the appellant sought to vary condition 2 of that permission to allow the erection of a means of enclosure along the northern boundary and the creation of a parking space. The Council refused that application on highway safety grounds.

Against this background, the main issue is whether varying condition [address] to any unacceptable harm to highway safety, specifically in relation to (a) access to neighbouring properties; and (b) the parking arrangements serving the appeal scheme.

The appeal site lies on [address] between two commercial properties, with a separate block of residential flats positioned to the rear. [address] forms part of the A35 corridor and accommodates substantial traffic volumes, including a frequent bus service.

The evidence before me indicates that the site previously contained a wall and a pair of gates and appeared to function as an access point to the flats. By the time of my site visit, however, the wall had been removed and construction works were underway. A further access serving the flats, as well as the rear of the commercial units on [address], is located a short distance away between 268 and [address].

The appellant disputes that the appeal site forms part of the access to the flats and the rear of the commercial properties. However, the Council has drawn attention to the planning permission for the erection of the flats, in which the approved site plan identifies the appeal site as the new access. Moreover, a condition attached to that permission requires the access to be formed prior to first occupation of the flats and thereafter retained and kept available for that purpose at all times.

In addition, the Council has provided extracts of the approved plans for the original permission, which demonstrate that sufficient space would be maintained for two-way vehicle movements along the initial section of the access across the appeal site. The ability to accommodate safe vehicle movements to and from the flats formed part of the Council’s assessment that the approved development was acceptable in highway safety terms.

I acknowledge the appellant’s position. However, it is not within my remit to make a legal determination regarding any private rights of access over the appeal site. While there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the access was created to serve the commercial properties on [address], the Council has sufficiently demonstrated that the site was approved as the new access to the flats. The condition attached to that permission requires that access to be formed and thereafter retained for that purpose. In planning terms, the appeal site therefore constitutes one of the available accesses serving the flats. I refer to this as the “approved access” from hereon.

The proposal would remove the approved access serving the rear of the appeal site. Its closure would divert all vehicle movements through the narrow access between 268 and [address] (the “alternative access”). This access is significantly constrained in width, enclosed by built form and incapable of accommodating two-way vehicle movement or allowing vehicles and pedestrians to pass safely.

It is acknowledged that the approved access also has limitations and that, in certain circumstances, a vehicle may need to reverse if another vehicle approaches from the opposite direction. However, it allows two vehicles to wait side by side in the mouth of the access, off the pavement. Any reversing manoeuvre would therefore take place without interrupting pedestrian movement. Additionally, drivers using the approved access have acceptable sight lines along both the pavement and the carriageway, enabling them to assess whether pedestrians are present and whether a safe gap in traffic exists before moving forward.

By contrast, drivers emerging from the alternative access would have almost no visibility of the footway. Its narrow, enclosed form prevents a driver from gaining sight of pedestrians until the vehicle has already projected onto the pavement. This forces drivers to enter the pedestrian route before they can assess whether it is safe to proceed. In a district centre location with constant footfall associated with shops, services and high-frequency bus routes, this creates an inherent and unavoidable risk of conflict.

Furthermore, given that two vehicles using the alternative access cannot pass each other, there is a heightened potential for a vehicle leaving the carriageway to have to reverse back down the access and onto the pavement, and potentially back into the carriageway, in order to allow another vehicle to pass. This increases the likelihood of vehicles reversing onto the classified road, disrupting traffic flow and increasing risk for all road users.

For these reasons, the closure of the approved access would intensify reliance on the alternative access, which is markedly substandard by comparison. Its removal would also eliminate the access point that allows safe decision-making, forcing all vehicle and pedestrian movements through an access that lacks adequate visibility and safety standards. Concentrating movements through this constrained and inherently unsafe point would materially increase the potential for conflict and give rise to significant highway safety concerns. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies PP27, PP34 and PP35 of the Poole Local Plan (2018) (LP), which collectively require development to protect and enhance highway and pedestrian safety.

The proposal includes the introduction of a single parking space alongside the building. The layout does not provide sufficient space for vehicles to turn within the site. As a result, vehicles would need to reverse either onto or off [address].

As established, [address] is a busy classified road and a high-frequency bus corridor. Reversing manoeuvres in such a location would interrupt traffic flow, create hazards for approaching vehicles, and increase risk for pedestrians using the footway. The constrained nature of the site means that safe turning cannot be achieved without projecting into the highway.

The footway in this location experiences high pedestrian activity. Reversing across it would expose pedestrians to unnecessary risk and would not accord with the requirement to prioritise pedestrian safety or minimise conflict between users.

The appellant indicates a willingness to omit the parking space if necessary. However, the appeal must be determined on the basis of the submitted plans, which include the parking provision. As submitted, the layout does not provide safe or suitable access for all users.

For these reasons, the proposal would introduce a parking arrangement that would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety. Consequently, the proposal also conflicts with Policies PP27, PP34 and PP35 of the LP in respect of this main issue.

The Council has drawn attention to an omission in the decision notice relating to mitigation for the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA), Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation and [name]. It does not seek to introduce new refusal reasons at appeal. [name] am dismissing the appeal for highway reasons, I do not need to consider this matter further.

For the reasons given above, 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. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.