Appeal 6002596

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against South Derbyshire District Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

A commercial coach business is already trading at the appeal site and so the planning application is of a retrospective nature.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on • highway safety with regard to access to and from [site address] , and • safety for users within the site.

The appeal site is a parcel of land situated on the western side of [site address] , around 500 metres to the north of its junction with [address] and around 700 metres from the junction of [address] with the A50. At the time of my visit, the site was in use for commercial coach services under the banner of Evolve buses, although the Design and [name] submitted with the planning application in September 2025 names the applicant as De Luxe Coach Services Ltd. Prior to its use for bus and coach purposes, the site was apparently occupied by a farmhouse and some farm buildings and had an established agricultural use. It would appear from information available to me that a coach business started on site sometime within the last 3 years.

The planning application was dated 25 September 2025 and it has a validation date of 15 October 2025. The proposed development would involve the continuation of a commercial coach business on the site which, from the submitted documentation, would include coach storage and parking for 22 coaches, with parking space also for 12 cars. It would appear that the appeal against non-determination of the application was lodged on 12 December 2025 and the formal start date is given as 18 December 2025. The Council officers have subsequently indicated that the proposal would have been recommended for refusal on the grounds of an inadequate access and egress to serve the currently operational coach services business by virtue of an insufficient width and insufficient visibility splays.

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), in Paragraph 115, indicates that in assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, and that any significant impacts from the development on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision-led approach.

Policy INF2 of the Council’s Local Plan Part 1 (LP) indicates that planning permission will be granted for development where travel generated by development, including goods vehicle movement, should have no undue detrimental impact upon highway safety, and where appropriate provision is made for safe and convenient access to and within the development for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and the private car.

The appellant contends that the business provides jobs; that it does not result in harm to highway safety; that concerns raised by the Highway Authority could be met by way of conditions applying to land owned by the appellant; and that it is compatible with the commercial character of the locality.

The Highway Authority has based its consultation response on the current nature of [site address] and on a [name] provided by the appellant. Concerns raised included that It would appear from the swept path analysis drawings that the existing access needed to be widened to enable satisfactory access and egress by coaches. In addition, it was considered that required visibility splays are not currently achieved and should be provided prior to the continued use of the access by coaches.

With regard to visibility splays, the sightlines used in the [name] are based upon measured speeds taken over a period of days in July 2025. The survey took place between 05.00 and 22.00, but used mainly non-peak results from 10.00 -12.00 and 14.00 – 16.00 in both directions. The Statement uses visibility splay requirements for an 85th percentile speed figure which work out at 35 mph northbound and 33 mph southbound during non-peak hours. The sightlines using these figures are 54.5 metres to the south of the site entrance, and 49.5 metres to the north which, from the diagrams produced by the consultants, could be accommodated within the appeal site and/or along the highway.

However, I note from the [name] that for such surveys a minimum of two individual speed measurement periods should be undertaken in different months and at least one month apart from each other, or in a neutral month if the former is not feasible. In this case, the survey was carried out during one month only and July is not noted as a typical neutral month. In addition, the speed limit along [site address] is 40 mph and it is not clear why the consultants elected to use the 85th percentile figures instead. Finally, the figures presented appear to show that speeds in the evening tend to be higher than the 85 th percentile figures and, given that hours of operation of the coach business extend to 22.00 (or 02.00 on occasions), I consider that the sightline drawings as submitted may not be a realistic impression of what is, in fact, required. This raises safety concerns when there is a significant bend in the road less than 50 metres to the south of the site entrance.

With regard to access and egress, the [name] shows a series of swept path diagrams for vehicles of differing lengths. These show access and egress arrangements for coaches to be extremely tight, both in terms of manoeuvring into and out of the site through the gateway and also encroaching into vegetation to the side of the relatively narrow road. At the time of my visit, the gateway appeared to have been part demolished and widened from the diagrammatic representation in the Statement, although it would seem likely that access and egress would still be problematic, and there are no up to date diagrams to indicate otherwise. Any difficulties for coaches to manoeuvre into and out of the site, potentially requiring reversing movements, would be harmful to highway safety, particularly given the posted speed limit along the road and the bend to the south of the site entrance.

At the time of my visit, during the afternoon, there were in the region of 26 coaches/buses on site. In the application documentation, it is stated that there would be some 44 trips generated by the business during the day. On the basis that there may well, therefore, have been a number of vehicles still to return, I have significant concerns that the business will result in excessive traffic on and off the site, which could not be satisfactorily or readily controlled by way of condition.

In addition to the coaches on site, there were a number of heritage vehicles, and also a large recovery vehicle. Parking and storage positions of coaches/cars etc were not as indicated on the submitted layout drawing, and appear to utilise areas not shown for such use on the drawing. Moreover, a significant number of the coaches on site appeared to be currently unusable, either under repair or in the process of dismantling. These presumably would be taking up space required for coaches in daily use. There is insufficient information submitted with the application to clearly identify the precise nature of the coach business.

The presence of the recovery vehicle would indicate that vehicles would, on occasion, need to be brought in for repair and other vehicles taken away or moved around the site as part of the business operation. There are no swept path diagrams to show the impact of such movements, using the recovery vehicle, either entering/leaving the site or within the site. Given the lack of space currently evident around the site, along with the access and egress issues noted above, I have significant concerns regarding the safety of highway users and site operatives, and this runs counter to the requirements of policy in the Framework and in Policy INF2 of the LP.

In conclusion on this issue, therefore, I find that the proposal would not ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; that it could not guarantee that there would be no undue detrimental impact upon highway safety; or that it could provide safe and convenient access within the development for pedestrians, cyclists and private car users.

I note that Foston and [name] 8 traverses a small part of the site in the north-east corner. There is no sign of the relevant access along the northern boundary for this footpath, which would then leave site at the main site entrance. It would appear that it would be possible to design car parking provision on site to allow for the use of a public right of way (PROW), and this would not necessarily therefore be an issue, though I have some limited concerns that there could be conflict between walkers and vehicles associated with the business at the site entrance, should the PROW follow the route identified.

The appellant contends that the use of the site would be compatible with the industrial/commercial nature of the surrounding area along [site address] . I concur with that view, but it does not influence my findings that the proposal as submitted would result in harm to highway safety.

The application form indicates that there would be 22 employees associated with the business on site. At the time of my visit, there were no more than 3 or 4 employees evident, although some may, of course, have been driving coaches off site. However, given my observations above, it seems unlikely that many vehicles were off-site at the time. In any event, the harm to highway safety from the scheme as proposed would outweigh any employment benefits resulting from the proposal.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would be harmful to highway safety with regard to access to and from [site address] , and to safety for users within the site. On this basis, the proposal would conflict with guidance in the Framework and with Policy INF2 of the LP. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.