Appeal 6001617

The appeal is dismissed.

Proposed revised plans have been submitted with the appeal submission, which include changes to and additional information related to the site access, including a revised site plan ([name] 1737-BA-105 [name]) and an additional [address] Plan ([name] 1737-BA-109). The amended/ additional plans show further details about the width of access, refuse collection details, gates and lighting along the access driveway and an area of pedestrian priority with the yard area, which is partly outside the application site, although on land shown to be in the appellant’s ownership.

As set out in the procedural guide for planning appeals1, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. Furthermore, having regard to the judgement in Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2018), which refined the ‘Wheatcroft principles’2, I cannot be sure that all interested parties have had opportunity to comment on the proposed revised plans. Therefore, in view of the differences between the application and proposed revised plans and the procedural unfairness that would arise, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the scheme and plans refused by the Council.

The Council considers that the proposal accords with the requirements set out in [name].1 of the General Permitted Development Order, 2015 (GPDO) and so, is permitted development. No evidence to the contrary has been provided. However, the Council argues that there would be a detrimental effect on highway 1 Paragraph 16 of the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals- England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026) 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37] safety, including for pedestrians within and around the site and has refused prior approval on that basis.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety, including the safety of pedestrians within and around the site.

The appeal site shares a vehicular access from [site address] with the wider site and buildings that have been or are currently in use for agricultural purposes and other uses3 that have taken place within some of the buildings. [site address] is a narrow, single carriageway country lane with a 60mph speed limit.

When leaving the shared access onto [site address] , the visibility is restricted by planting and other features. Some of the vegetation lies outside the control and ownership of the appellant, even if they currently maintain it. Additionally, due to the restricted width of the existing access driveway, vehicles entering the site would need to reverse back onto the highway to allow vehicles to exit the site. This could cause incidents on the highway between reversing vehicles and other road users.

Therefore, while no records of accidents along the lane have been evidenced, the limited visibility and high speed of traffic along [site address] , together with increased residential vehicular movement associated with the proposed dwellings would likely result in likely greater potential for vehicular collisions at the access and within the highway.

As set out by the appellant and observed during my site visit, [site address] experiences a generally low volume of traffic movement. Additionally, the appellant asserts the traffic movement for the proposal would be less than that of the existing use and, that the highway authority has previously noted that the average speed of traffic is less than the speed limit. Although, no substantive evidence of such, has been provided, including copies of any speed surveys undertaken or details of the level of vehicular movement associated with the existing use compared to that of the proposed dwellings. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would reduce overall traffic movement using the shared site access, nor that the access onto the highway is safe, having regard to visibility and traffic speed.

The grass verge areas along the side of the access driveway could provide some refuge for pedestrians using it. However, there are yard and manoeuvring areas in front and to the rear of the existing 3 large, linked buildings, which future occupiers and visitors to the proposed dwellings would need to navigate through in order to gain access to the new dwellings, whether it be by vehicle, foot, or cycle. Due to the amount of remaining agricultural buildings and use within the wider site, this could still result in a significant amount of vehicle movement, including large agricultural vehicles and other activities taking place with the yard areas and access way leading to and around the proposed dwellings. This would likely lead to conflict between users, leading to vehicle and pedestrian incidents.

Even if the two other existing dwellings, located toward the road frontage of the wider site currently share the vehicular access with agricultural traffic, an additional three dwellings would more than double the level of residential pedestrian and 3 [name] served by the Council dated 12 August 2025 sets out that the 3 large, interconnected buildings were in use for mixed use of car repairs, timber storage, vehicle storage, storage of tree surgery equipment, storage and maintenance of agricultural vehicles/equipment/other vehicles and storage of agricultural and materials. vehicular movement using the shared access and needing to traverse the yard areas. Therefore, this would likely heighten conflict between the agricultural and domestic use, when compared to the existing situation. Furthermore, even if cars are safer than agricultural vehicles, the future occupiers of and visitors to the appeal dwellings would need to travel further into the wider agricultural site than the existing dwellings toward the site frontage, creating greater areas of conflict and danger of risk of accidents within the wider site overall.

The access driveway is tarmacked, of similar width to [site address] with pillars set back from the highway and, the speed of traffic using the access would likely be slow due to its’ width. Furthermore, the proposal would remove part of the agricultural use from the wider site. However, such factors would not ensure the provision of a safe means of access, in terms of visibility splays and highway traffic speed, nor does the prior approval include works to the site access and driveway. Additionally, such matters would not remove the likely conflict between users of the existing use and occupiers of the proposed dwellings, as the access and parts of the courtyard areas would be in shared use.

Even if the Council and highway authority came to different conclusions in relation to the highway impact for another class Q development proposal, Council ref 22/00660/COUQ, this relates to a different development in a different location. Therefore, I have had regard to the individual merits of the appeal proposal in making my decision. Also, even though the access driveway could be widened, this is not part of the class Q application proposal and this would not ensure a safe means of access onto the highway, nor that there would be no accidents caused to pedestrians within and around the whole of the appeal site.

In view of the above, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety, including the safety of pedestrians within and around the site. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the transport and highway impacts of the proposed development would be acceptable and, condition Q2 (1) (a) of the GPDO would not be met.

The condition and maintenance of the adopted highway is not within the appellant’s control and so does not weigh against the proposal. Even though the appellant has sought to be collaborative, this and the actions and procedures of the Council and the views of the Council’s deputy CEO, are matters which do not affect my findings on the main issue.

The Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing land, stated to be 2.74 years in a recent appeal decision (ref. APP/J3720/W/25/3358848), which sought planning permission for up to 130 dwellings. However, even though the proposed development would provide more dwellings, the appeal proposal is for permitted development and so, as set out in Schedule 2 to the GPDO, only matters relevant to the subject matter on which the prior approval is sought may be considered. Consequently, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) only applies so far as the relevant subject matters. Therefore, I cannot give any weight to the housing land supply position for this permitted development, nor to the fact that the proposal would reuse existing built form.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.