Appeal 6002073

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for [name] following the grant of Permission in Principle. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle has established that the location, land use, and amount of development are suitable in principle. The Technical Details Consent that is the subject of this appeal can consider the remaining detailed matters but cannot reopen what has already been agreed at the Permission in Principle stage. I have determined this appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed kerb build-out on highway safety.

The appeal site relates to part of an agricultural field located off [site address] . The site benefits from an existing field gate which I understand is used by the farmer. The scheme before me proposes a new, more centrally located access. This section of [site address] is relatively straight, benefits from street lighting, and has a slight variance in road width. There are other properties in close proximity to the appeal site that have direct access onto [site address] .

The proposed kerb build-out design would allow the required visibility splays to be achieved, and the reason for refusal does not contest the proposed splays. However, it would notably narrow the width of the carriageway, creating a raised obstacle for highway users. Lancashire County Council highlights that the resultant width of the road would be below the minimum width set out in Manual for Streets. The Transport Technical Note (August 2025) also acknowledges that the width of the road at the point of build-out is less than preferable for a new build situation1. The build-outs could result in collisions between vehicles (due to the reduced width of the carriageway) or cause damage to vehicles if they come into contact with the build-out.

The proposed kerb build-out is similar to one used at [address], off Ightenhill Park Lane2. I understand that Ightenhill Park Lane also has a speed limit of 30mph, like [site address] . However, there are fundamental differences between the two highways and therefore that approval cannot be directly compared to the case before me. For example, Ightenhill Park Lane is noticeably wider, and the approved kerb build-out retained a markedly wider carriageway. Furthermore, the character of the roads differ, with this part of [site address] being more rural and associated with large farm vehicles.

I accept that obstacles can sometimes be present in the road. For example, as there are no parking restrictions on this part of [site address] , vehicles can park on the highway. My site visit observations, and the evidence before me, confirm that vehicles do park on this section of [site address] . Furthermore, I do not dispute that the additional vehicle movements to and from the site would be relatively small as the proposal is for a single dwelling.

Nonetheless, the appellants have not satisfactorily shown that the kerb build-out would not create an obstacle prejudicial to highway safety. Moreover, they have not adequately considered the impact the build-outs would have on access arrangements for the driveways opposite the site. The proposal also does not clearly demonstrate whether there would be additional infrastructure to support the works, such as signage, lighting and road markings, which could help address highway safety matters. In addition, whilst there is street lighting on this part of [site address] , this is on the opposite side of the highway, and it is unclear how visible the build-outs would be in low light.

The appellants suggest that appropriate conditions could be attached to determine the detailed arrangements, and it may be that one build-out is required and that it can be reduced in overall depth. However, inadequate evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a workable solution is achievable and that a condition would satisfactorily overcome the highway safety concerns set out above.

My attention has been drawn to the findings of an appeal decision3 at the appeal site. Nonetheless, it appears that the earlier scheme did not include a kerb build-out design and that decision was issued in 1989. Since then, planning policy and guidance have changed. The evidence before me also indicates that vehicle numbers have increased on the road since that decision. Therefore, the circumstances of the cases are not directly comparable. I have, in any case, reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal based on the evidence before me.

In conclusion, when drawing the above points together, in this location, the kerb build-out would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy IC1 of Burnley’s Local Plan (2018). This states 1 Paragraph 6.4 2 FUL/2022/0277 3 T/APP/Z2315/A/88/106727/P5 that development schemes should provide for safe pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access to, from and within the development, and should maintain the safe and efficient flow of traffic on the surrounding highway network. As such, it would conflict with paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The Council advises that a [name], relating to securing the dwelling as self-build and biodiversity net gain, would be required. Given my findings in relation to the main issue above, I have not considered this matter further as it would not be determinative to my decision.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal does not succeed.