Appeal 6002207

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed access on highway safety, with regard to the proposed visibility splay and access arrangements onto the B1230 ([name]); and • The effect on the living conditions on both the current occupants of [address] and the future occupants of the proposed dwelling, with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site is located off the B1230 ([name]) which is the main route through the village of Walkington. I observed from my site visit that [name] is a busy road and is a through route for vehicles travelling between Beverley and the M62. The speed limit is set at 30mph and is managed by a series of traffic calming measures which are intended to keep road users to that limit. This includes speed humps which are positioned at intervals on the B1230 throughout the village, including directly outside the proposed access to the appeal site.

The appeal site is located at the centre of the village and within close proximity there are a range of local services including public houses, a shop and a village hall. When open, these uses will generate pedestrian footfall and on-street parking. I observed during my site visit that parking restrictions are limited in the vicinity, other than a restriction to preserve access to the residential properties.

Access to the appeal site is at a point on the B1230 where there is a shallow bend in the road, with the proposed access being on the inside of that bend. Visibility at the access point is restricted due to its positioning on this bend but also due to the positioning of the building line of the adjacent property of The Barrel public house.

Given this context, it is important that an acceptable visibility splay is achieved to allow for safe access and egress from the site. The starting point for achieving the necessary visibility splay is set out in the Manual for Streets (MfS), specifically in regard to [name] (SSD). With regard to providing an acceptable ‘Y’ distance, the MfS identifies that an SSD on a 30mph road should be no less than 43m.

Whilst a leftward splay can be readily achieved to meet the SSD expectations in the MfS, the presence of the building line to The Barrel public house prevents an acceptable rightward splay being achieved. Due to the presence of this building line only a 29.6m or 31.8m ‘Y’ distance splay can be achieved depending on the application of the ‘X’ distance.

Mitigating factors have been put forward by the appellant in regard to the application of the MfS guidance on SSD’s. Specifically, that later guidance set out in Manual for Streets 2 (MfS2) suggests that whilst remaining a starting point, flexibility can be applied to the SSD’s identified in the MfS, subject to local circumstances. The appellant considers that the presence of traffic calming measures, both through the village and directly at the access point to the appeal site, means that it would be reasonable to assume that vehicles are travelling below the legal speed limit in this location. The appellant considers the presence of traffic calming measures and their impact on road speed past the site to be sufficient local circumstance for flexibility to be applied.

[name] would acknowledge the presence of traffic calming measures, these are in place to ensure that traffic speeds are kept to or below the legal speed limit. No evidence has been provided by the appellant to substantiate that it is reasonable to assume that the presence of traffic calming measures will lead to lower speeds of traffic passing the appeal site. Without such evidence I would therefore conclude that the guidance on visibility splays in the MfS should be the starting point and that no demonstrable local circumstances have been presented by the appellant to suggest a more flexible approach should be applied.

Consequently, whilst it has been demonstrated that an acceptable leftward ‘Y’’ distance splay can be achieved, the rightward ‘Y’ distance falls substantially short of the guidance set out in the MfS. Furthermore, the presence of on-street parking and proximity to local services means that the achievement of a visibility splay is important to ensure safe access and egress from the site. The lack of a suitable splay would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety both for road users and pedestrians.

Access to the site is taken from a single-track private driveway which, from the entrance to [name], includes a level change and a number of bends. The proposed development seeks to incorporate passing places which ensure that cars can pass should they meet on the driveway. The passing places are set to the top of the driveway, closest to the appeal site and, due to the topography, planting and bends in the driveway, those passing places would not be readily visible from the access point with the public highway.

[name].42 of the [name] (ERDC) sets out an expectation that the minimum width for a private shared driveway should be 5m. This expectation is for any shared driveway, regardless of development size. The current width of the existing driveway at between 2.4m and 3.3m is below the expectations of the ERDC. However, the [name] does not form part of the development plan and I note that the appellant seeks to mitigate the narrow width of the driveway through the use of passing places. I would accept the appellants suggestion that the instances where vehicles will meet on the driveway would be low and the material increase of trips generated from an additional dwelling sharing the driveway would be limited, as set out in the appellants [name]. Notwithstanding, the potential frequency and the implications of how vehicles will manoeuvre when such instances do arise remains an important consideration.

The character of the shared driveway and the lack of visibility between the proposed passing places and the access point onto the public highway means there is a high probability that when vehicles do meet on the driveway, a reversing manoeuvre will be required either for a vehicle to return to the passing place, or return to the access with the public highway.

Should a vehicle undertake a reversing manoeuvre onto the public highway this will involve reversing out onto the public footpath to allow the other vehicle to pass. I note the site testing in Appendix 3 of the appellants [name] which demonstrates that a car would be able to wait in the bellmouth of the site without projecting out into the road. However, this testing does not take account of the implications of oversize vehicles such as vans or small HGVs which would potentially project out into the highway.

The consequence of vehicles reversing out onto the public highway would create a highway safety risk for passing pedestrians using the footpath and, with regard to larger vehicles, a highway safety risk for wider road users. I would acknowledge the appellants argument around the number of additional trips generated, however there is no dispute between parties that the number of occasions when vehicles access or egress the site will increase.

Whilst the junction of the access with the public highway may have been acceptable for low levels of use, a point is reached where the risk to highway safety is no longer acceptable. In my judgement, this proposal would increase the level of use above this safe point. Consequently, the arrangements set out by the appellant in regard to the provision of passing places would not overcome the potential additional risks to highway safety.

I therefore conclude that the proposed visibility splays and access arrangements are contrary to Policies ENV1 and EC4 of the East Riding Local Plan Update (2025) which states that development proposals should promote safe movement including access, egress and minimising safety risks and addressing likely transport impact.

Additionally, I have had due regard to the Framework, which indicates that development should be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appeal site is set within a range of detached residential properties with the proposed development sharing the closest relationships with properties off No.37 and No.49 [name]. However, it is the proposed developments relationship with [address] which is the focus of disagreement between parties.

[address] is set to the north-east of the appeal site and would be separated from the proposed development by substantial boundary treatment including fencing, tree planting and hedgerows. This provides significant screening between the appeal site and [address]. However, due to the two-storey nature of the appeal proposal and the inclusion of habitable windows and a balcony area at the first-floor level, this has the potential to result in overlooking between dwellings. If any of the existing boundary screening was to be lost, this could have a detrimental impact on both the current occupants of [address] and the future occupants of the proposed dwelling.

The Council have suggested that this matter could be addressed through the inclusion of privacy glass and appropriate screening to protect the privacy of future occupants of the property. I would consider this to be an acceptable approach and details of this could have been secured by the imposition of an appropriate condition if the development had been otherwise acceptable.

There is no dispute between parties that the proposed dwelling will be meeting an identified need in regard to providing a self-build / custom build unit. In the context of paragraph 73 of the Framework, I give notable weight to this matter.

I note that the Council raised the issue of the proposals relationship with the nearby conservation area but concluded it to have a neutral effect on its character. I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a previous planning approval which was granted for a similar proposal at this location. This permission was granted in 2022 and has subsequently lapsed. [name] acknowledge that previous planning permission had been granted, it is inherent that the current proposal is considered on its own merits and based on the current development plan position. The issues regarding the handling of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here. I therefore afford limited weight to this matter.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other driveways on [name] which they believe serve a comparable number of dwellings. I viewed these access points whilst attending my site visit and would conclude that the layout of these driveways, in terms of their topography, straight orientation and their access arrangements with the public highway are materially different. I therefore afford limited weight to this matter.

I have found that the proposal would cause an unacceptable risk to highway safety both in terms of the provision of an appropriate visibility splay and safe access and egress of vehicles into the appeal site. I attach significant weight to the resulting conflict with the development plan and the harm that would be caused.

In favour of the appeal, the creation of a self / custom build property would be supporting an identified housing need which, in the context of the Framework, should be supported where it represents sustainable development.

On balance, I conclude that the harm caused to highway safety outweighs the benefits of delivering a new self / custom build property. Material considerations therefore do not indicate that permission should be granted for development that is not in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.