Appeal 6002343

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of fishing lake at [site address] , [site address] , Ketton, [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 2025/0282/FUL, without compliance with condition 2 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/2011/0657/NH dated 1 November 2011 and subject to the following conditions:

The fishing lake hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental to the dwelling known as [site address] and for commercial purposes limited to no more than five fishing pitches or pegs around the lake. Each pitch or peg shall be booked in advance for the entire day and shall not be used by multiple bookings on any day.

The use of the fishing lake for commercial purposes shall only be undertaken in accordance with times of use previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

The works to the site entrance shown on drawings 1775/003A and 005 shall be carried out prior to the first use of the fishing lake for commercial purposes.

The car park and turning area shown on drawing 1775/003 [name] shall be provided and made available prior to the first use of the fishing lake for commercial purposes. The parking and turning area shall thereafter be retained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the use of the lake.

The proposal is to remove Condition 2 to allow the lake to be fished by people other than the owners of [site address] . There would be five pitches or pegs around the lake. These would be booked in advance for the entire day. The application was submitted to regularise previous breaches of the condition and as a pre-cursor to a future application for fishing lodges.

This is whether Condition 2 is necessary and reasonable having regard to the effect of the proposed use of the fishing lake on highway safety along [site address] .

If operated as envisaged there would most likely be two additional daily movements from each pitch off of and onto [site address] . It is possible that someone fishing at [site address] might decide to leave their pitch for a short while and return later or others might join them at times. However, whilst allowing for this, it is reasonable to base any assessment on the likelihood that the proposal would generate about ten extra vehicle movements each day.

The new parking area to serve the lake would be accessed via a long single track driveway which is also a public footpath. There is a set of electronically operated security gates set back from the road at the entrance. As part of the proposal the existing bellmouth would be widened slightly to create a minimum width of 4.25m in front of the gates and a new passing bay would be created just behind them.

The existing bellmouth is large enough for two vehicles to occupy it at the same time. The swept path analysis also shows that there is scope for two large family vehicles to pass one another. In any event, the likelihood of vehicles associated with the proposal arriving at or leaving the site at the same time as other users is very low. This is because the amount of traffic generated by the proposed fishing use would be extremely small. It is also highly improbable that all five anglers would arrive at the site at exactly the same time.

If vehicles did encounter each other at the entrance and there was insufficient space to pass, the time taken to manoeuvre safely around one another would be short. [site address] is straight with grass verges and no footway but very lightly trafficked according to the appellant’s survey. There is no record of personal injury accidents at the site access. Approaching drivers would have a clear view of any vehicles paused at the entrance and would be able to take appropriate action in good time. Therefore, if there was a need for vehicles to wait briefly on the road or to reverse out onto it, the risk of rear end shunt collisions and sudden braking would be insignificant and the free flow of traffic would not be materially impeded.

Local residents refer to other uses and developments at [site address] . These include holiday cottages, a swimming pool and large barn. Drivers visiting the site for fishing might therefore need to use the entrance at the same time as others, including service vehicles. However, the number of trips associated with the proposal would be so small that such a scenario is also unlikely. Any permissions given at the site would presumably have considered highway safety issues. The appeal has to be considered on the basis of the implications arising from non-compliance with Condition 2 alone.

According to local residents the traffic survey was undertaken to the south-west of the entrance and therefore excluded movements to and from the site towards Ketton village. Indeed, all the [site address] traffic I observed during my visit headed towards or arrived from that direction. This may also explain why the 85th percentile speed of traffic exceeded 30mph in both directions as the national speed limit applies as the road leaves Ketton. There is also criticism that the survey was undertaken outside the summer months when the road is busier. The Council refers to links to the A47 but there is no firm evidence to indicate that [site address] carries excessively high volumes of traffic, even for a rural road.

The limitations of other roads nearby such as [address] and [address]/[address] are referred to. However, the proposal would make an imperceptible difference to traffic flows along them and therefore would not exacerbate any of their deficiencies or create further risks to any material extent.

Although highway issues are relevant it is notable that these do not feature in the reason for imposing Condition 2 which only refers to amenity. Furthermore, the works proposed around the entrance would also lead to a modest improvement in the arrangements for all traffic entering and leaving [site address] .

The highway authority refers to a 60% increase in vehicle numbers. However, even if that is correct, the increase in absolute terms would be negligible and the proposal would not have unacceptable adverse impact on the highway network. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy SP15 m) of the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document. Furthermore, there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety in line with paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It is understandable that the Parish Council and others expected Condition 2 to be permanent in effect. However, planning legislation allows for applications to be made for the development of land without complying with previously imposed conditions. The only matter to consider in these circumstances is the conditions rather than the development itself. Given that the fishing lake is already in existence, no weight can be given to objections raised about the location of the site outside the development limits of Ketton and its visibility.

The Council refers to a condition to control the number of visitors and departure and arrival times. Given the original reason for the condition and the proximity of the drive to residential properties in [address], this is reasonable and necessary and should be agreed in advance. Similarly, the scope of the commercial fishing use should be limited to that proposed in the application and the parking provided. To facilitate vehicular movement and access into the site the proposed entrance works should be required.

Other suggested conditions about the design and construction of the access and the position of the gates are therefore superfluous. The nature of the improvement works is modest in scope such that a construction method statement is unnecessary. The low level of traffic that would be generated also means that a condition survey along [site address] is not justified. None of the other conditions imposed on the 2011 permission are required.

This decision is solely concerned with widening the use of the existing fishing lake. Any future applications at [site address] , including any involving commercial activities, would need to be assessed on an individual basis rather than rely on these findings.

The removal of Condition 2 would not lead to harm to highway safety and therefore its retention is neither necessary nor reasonable. A replacement condition to control the use of the lake is nonetheless required together with other conditions as detailed above. The proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations to the contrary. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should succeed.