Appeal 6001766

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal proposal has already been carried out, which I was able to observe on site. I have assessed it as such, on the basis of the plans before me.

Ownership of the appeal site is in dispute. Notwithstanding, I am satisfied that the relevant interested parties are aware of the appeal and have had the opportunity of commenting on it.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. However, as this is not an area of dispute, I have not considered this further.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the highway network, with particular regard to highway safety and the free flow of traffic for all users; and • flood risk.

[site address] is a narrow country lane, with trees and vegetation lining its eastern side which abuts the open countryside beyond. Along its western side where commercial premises and a scattering of dwellings lie, are some more formalised boundary treatments comprising low brick walls which intersperse the greenery. In the vicinity of the appeal site, the frontage boundary with the residential dwelling known as [site address] , comprises a low brick wall topped with railings behind a wide grass verge and watercourse.

The appeal site comprises a narrow slither of land that forms part of [site address] , a public highway, bridleway and public right of way (PROW) known as [site address]

It also includes the verge adjacent to the pier and embankment, which is bound with hardstanding. Located outside of [site address] , the proposal relates to a high brick wall that projects off a frontage brick pier. A high metal electric gate is attached, which slides across to the brick pier on the opposite side of the carriageway. Beyond the appeal site to the south, is a commercial premises, with [site address] Nature Reserve further southeast.

[site address] forms a clear visual transition between the open, verdant countryside to the east and the built‐up development to the west. Whilst the wall, gate and pier have used materials similar to the boundary treatment at [site address] , the adjacent residential boundary is a low brick wall with railings, its impact softened by the intervening grass verge. In contrast, the new wall is a taller, solid structure that extends across the verge, with its attached gate projecting into the highway, eroding the distinction between the character areas by introducing a dominant urban feature.

Its height creates an imposing presence that could reasonably deter public access to the wider PROW network and the nearby publicly accessible Nature Reserve. The formality of the proposal is starkly at odds with the softer, verdant boundary to the east, a matter compounded by the now bound eastern verge. The result is a structure that encroaches across the rural highway, interrupting and harming the transition from urban to countryside character. Consequently, I find the development to be incongruous to the prevailing rural and informal character and appearance of the area.

The appellant contends that the appeal site lies within the [site address] Special Policy Area in the Local Plan, linked to Policy SADM25 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) (SADMPP), a copy of which has not been provided. However, even if the proposal had been in accordance with this policy, it does not preclude consideration against the rest of the development plan. Additionally, an area to the east is identified as being subject of a planning permission for a data centre1 which the appellant asserts will change the area. Limited details are provided and noting the intervening gap between the appeal site and the data centre site, neither this nor the aforementioned policy alter my findings on this appeal.

For the reasons I have set out, I find the proposal to conflict with [name] SADM11 and SADM30. Amongst other things, they expect development to complement, conserve or improve the prevailing landscape quality and character, respect local features and make a positive contribution to the built and natural environment. It is also contrary to Policy CS22 of the [name] (2013) (CS) which seeks to achieve high quality of design.

[site address] is a Byway subject to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Whilst not provided in evidence, it is suggested that the TRO seeks to restrict vehicular traffic to those frontagers. However, it is also in evidence that [site address] is open to all classes of traffic, including pedestrians and horse riders. 1 Planning Ref: 24/1152/[name]

The appellant contends the function of the gate is to prevent unlawful wheeled access. It is asserted that the gated opening is 4.85m wide, with the area between the pillar and embankment to the east being 1.7m in width, bound and flat. It is further stated that the gate remains open during daylight hours and that after these hours, other users can use the unrestricted narrower access.

When the gate is fully open it would provide sufficient width for free access for all traffic. With a gap of around 1.7m wide when the gate is closed, I am satisfied that pedestrians, including wheelchair users would have sufficient space at the side of the gate to move freely through the site. It would be tighter for cyclists but could be achieved with care.

However, my attention is drawn to advice published by the British Horse Society Advice for Access and Rights of Way, specifically regarding gate installation on equestrian routes. This points to a need for a minimum gap of 3m wide on a byway for reasons of their safety and mobility. As such, the narrower gap proposed could be insufficient to allow for the safe passage of horse riders. This does not therefore provide a safe and convenient link through and within the site to enable access to adjoining routes and services for all, which is a key objective of SADMPP Policy SADM40.

Mention is made of historical barriers installed across the highway, no longer present at the time of my visit. Limited information is provided on these, but the photographic evidence provided suggests these were not in the same location and the gap to the side was wider, and that the low-level barrier could be freely opened. In contrast, the electric gate relies on the ability and availability of a third party to open it.

[name] note the appellant suggests a condition could be imposed to require a gate controller to be present in [site address] , this property is not within the red line of the appeal site, nor is the property identified by a blue line on plan as being within the same control. Therefore, I cannot be certain that this could be secured. The unencumbered free flow of traffic cannot therefore be guaranteed. [name] note the apparent lack of complaints on this matter since the development was completed, this does not fully allay the concerns that access could be impeded in the future.

[site address] is an unlit road subject to the national speed limit that connects [address] to the west by a simple priority junction. Its straight alignment in the vicinity of the appeal site allows for adequate forward visibility for highway users. Noting the lightly trafficked nature of the lane and the lack of reported incidents, there is insufficient evidence to show that this proposal constitutes a highway safety matter.

Nevertheless, the effect of the development on the highway network would be one of potential inconvenience and one that could unduly impede the free flow of traffic. In this regard, it does not accord with the policy objectives of encouraging sustainable means of accessing public spaces.

I find there to be some limited conflict with SADMPP Policy SADM40 in that the proposal has the potential to unduly harm the flow of traffic and does not provide for safe and convenient movement and site access for all users. It follows that it does not fully achieve the objectives of promoting and safeguarding access to parks, open spaces, rural visitor attractions and to the wider local countryside, and to contribute to achieving fair access to key community facilities, and the wider goal of creating a safer and more sustainable environment as expected by [name] CS15 and CS18. Neither does it encourage or provide a safer and more reliable alternative to the private car along the highways network, which would increase walking, cycling or riding opportunities in accordance with CS Policy CS26.

However, I find no conflict with CS Policy CS19 or SADMPP Policy SADM32 which relate to developments for key community facilities, which this is not. Nor do I find conflict in respect of CS Policy CS25 as I find no highway safety harm ensues.

The Council now accept that the site does not lie within either [name] 2 or 3. Consequently it is within Zone 1, at the lowest risk of fluvial flooding. However, it now contends the site lies within an area at high risk of surface water flooding, evidenced by an extract from the Environment Agency’s flooding map. It asserts that the reason for refusal still stands as insufficient information has been advanced to properly assess the flood risk implications.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) expects that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that, where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment (FRA). Footnote 63 of the Framework sets out that, for development in [name] 1, a FRA should accompany all proposals involving sites of 1 hectare or more; land which has been identified by the Environment Agency as having critical drainage problems, land identified in a strategic flood risk assessment as being at increased flood risk in future, or land that may be subject to other sources of flooding, where its development would introduce a more vulnerable use.

The site does not meet the size threshold outlined above. I have not been shown in evidence that it is designated as a critical drainage area, nor have I been provided with the Council’s Strategic flood risk assessment. Furthermore, it has not been shown to be a more vulnerable use as set out in Annex 2: Flood risk vulnerability classification of the Framework. On that basis and on the evidence available, I am not satisfied that a site-specific FRA is necessary, and I find the Council’s reason for refusal to be unsubstantiated. It follows that I do not identify conflict with Policies SADM13, SADM14 or SADM15 of the SADMPP.

Neither the restrictions on the byway or the need for restricting unlawful wheeled traffic have been demonstrated in evidence. Even if such a need had been demonstrated, it has not been shown that a means of enclosure of the scale proposed is the only means of achieving it.

I have found there to be demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I am not satisfied that the proposal would allow for the free flow of all traffic, at all times.

As such, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other material considerations that indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.