Appeal 6002390

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land on the southern side of [site address] , a rural road subject to the national speed limit. The site lies within the countryside, is currently in equestrian use, and is accessed via an existing gated vehicular entrance and track from [site address] . The access is bounded by roadside hedgerows.

The proposal seeks the demolition of the existing stables and the installation of a mobile home and field shelter. During the application process, several amendments and additional information were submitted in response to highway safety concerns.

The evidence before me shows that recorded 85th percentile speeds on this section of [site address] are around 50–51miles per hour. Visibility from the access is restricted by the alignment of the carriageway and the presence of roadside mature hedgerows on both sides. Even when assessed from a reduced 2 metre setback, the visibility splays are significantly below those required to achieve safe access.

I have considered the appellant’s evidence concerning the lawful equestrian use fallback and the contention that this could generate a materially higher number of daily vehicle movements than the proposed residential use. The fallback position is a lawful use and could, in principle, occur. I have had regard to the appellant’s referenced judgments1 in this regard. However, the evidence before me does not 1 Gambone v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin); Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] [name] 1314. demonstrate that such an intensity of use has occurred in practice in recent years, nor does it provide robust, site-specific trip data showing that this level of use is likely to resume. Consequently, I give the fallback position only limited weight.

Even if I were to accept a higher level of equestrian activity, the central issue is whether the access can provide safe and suitable visibility for vehicles emerging onto a high-speed rural road. Based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that adequate visibility can be achieved for the recorded speeds. Notwithstanding the suggested realignment of part of the eastern hedge, the visibility splays fall substantially short of those required to achieve safe access, and the evidence before me does not demonstrate, through detailed drawings, that compliant splays could be delivered on both sides of the access. Although permissions were granted for the equestrian facilities, those permissions do not in themselves demonstrate that the access arrangements would meet current visibility requirements for a materially different residential use.

Although the appellant contends that vehicular types would be broadly similar between the lawful equestrian use and the proposed residential use, the residential use would rely solely on private vehicles, including by drivers unfamiliar with the access, particularly due to the appeal site’s siting in relation to the nearest built-up area, and the lack of footpaths and public transport options. As the proposal involves a material change of use, the access must be assessed against current standards rather than previous patterns of operation. The absence of recorded accidents does not, in itself, demonstrate that the access is safe, particularly where visibility splays fall well below those required to achieve safe access.

I have also considered on‐site vehicle manoeuvring. Although tracking diagrams were provided for a micro‐van, the submitted drawings do not satisfactorily demonstrate that a typical 3.5‐tonne delivery vehicle could enter, turn, and exit the site in forward gear without conflict or over‐run. Forward‐gear egress is particularly important given the constrained visibility and vehicle speeds on [site address] .

Although the proposal would result in an improved, widened and surfaced entrance, and the first set of gates would be removed, these elements are not sufficient to make it acceptable, as they would not address the main concern regarding adequate visibility.

Overall, the evidence does not demonstrate that safe and suitable access can be achieved for the development. Given the extent of the visibility shortfall, the recorded vehicle speeds, the nature of [site address] , and the operational characteristics of a residential use, I find that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

For the reasons set out above, the suggested conditions regarding restriction of future use of the land, and visibility improvements to the east of the site would not overcome the harm I have identified.

In conclusion, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Therefore, it conflicts with the aims of Policy DM5 of the Newark & Sherwood Local Development Framework Allocations & Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 and Spatial Policy 7 of the [name] 2019, which collectively require, amongst other things, that developments provide safe access for all. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly paragraph 116, which states that development should be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The proposal was found acceptable by the Council in all the other aspects, except from the issue assessed above. Given the evidence before me, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion. However, these are neutral matters rather than ones that carry positive weight for the development.

The applicant contends that the proposal is an effective use of the land and it would provide an affordable new home in which to enjoy their retirement. [name] acknowledge these benefits, I consider that they do not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

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