Appeal 6002709

The appeal is dismissed.

I note from the appeal documentation and my site visit that part of the proposed development (relating to 4 storage containers) has already been carried out. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal site comprises an area of land known as [site address] , located to the south of the village of Midgham, which is mainly in use as general industrial and storage and distribution. An established access road leading from the entrance to the main part of the site connects the main part of the site to the A4, a major A-road which provides links to the A34, Newbury, and Thatcham to the west of the site, and the M4 and Reading to the east of the site. Concerns have been raised regarding the level of visibility available at the junction between the access road and the A4, specifically in relation to westbound traffic.

[name] have been submitted by the appellant1, which shows that the A4 in the vicinity of the site is a very busy road, which carries significant volumes of traffic. Two survey sites were used, both located on the A4 near to the appeal site. The results show that the average 85th percentile speeds for the period surveyed were 49.6mph (westbound) and 52.4mph (eastbound) at survey site 1 and 53.4mph (westbound) and 53.0mph (eastbound) at survey site 2. The Automatic Traffic Count, submitted by a consultant acting on behalf of an interested party2, confirmed a 85th percentile speed of 52mph and 51mph in the eastbound and westbound directions, respectively. 1 Appeal Statement on Transport Matters (Glanville Consultants Ltd) (October 2025) 2 [name] (Stuart Michael Associates Limited) (January 2026)

The submitted Appeal Statement on Transport Matters refers to guidance in Manual for Streets 2 (MfS2) in calculating the required visibility splay at the access for a vehicle turning right on egress. This is stated to be 162m. This differs slightly from the figure provided by the consultant mentioned above, which applied the methodology set out in the [name] for Roads and Bridges. As the difference is merely due to the marginally different speeds recorded by the 2 parties, and that the appellant added an additional 2m for the vehicle bonnet length for robustness, I accept the appellant’s figure as being correct. This figure constitutes the desirable minimum [name] (SSD), which paragraph 10.1.4 of MfS2 defines as the distance drivers need to be able to see ahead and they can stop within from a given speed.

The Existing Site Access Visibility Splay drawing3 submitted by the appellant, correctly follows the recommendation set out at paragraph 10.5.3 of MfS2, that an accurate assessment of visibility splay is made by measuring to the nearside edge of the vehicle track.

The Existing Visibility Splays drawing4, submitted by the consultant mentioned above, shows the extent of the highway boundary. I observed on my site visit that the hedgerow appeared to be trimmed back roughly in line with that boundary. The Council have confirmed that they would support the clearance and continued maintenance of the sightline as shown on the appellant's drawing. I have no substantive evidence which indicates that the Council could not follow-through on this commitment, with respect to land within the control of the relevant highways authority. Assuming that none of this land is outside the control of the highways authority, a planning condition could be imposed to secure this.

For these reasons, the appellant's visibility splay of approximately 100m when looking eastwards from the access is achievable. This falls 62m short of the desirable minimum SSD of 162m referred to above, which is a considerable shortfall.

I have had regard to the extract from the [name] showing typical stopping distances. According to this extract, a car travelling at 50mph can typically stop within 53m. This indicates that typically cars travelling at 50mph should have adequate distance to stop to prevent a collision if a driver were to observe a vehicle exiting the access onto the A4 at approximately 100 metres away.

This provides approximately 47m leeway when set against the available visibility at the access of 100m towards the east (referred to above). A vehicle travelling at 50mph moves at approximately 22 metres per second, leaving only approximately 2 seconds as a margin for error. According to the extract from the [name], a car travelling at 60mph can typically stop within 73m. This provides approximately 27m leeway when set against the desirable minimum SSD of 100m referred to above. A car travelling at 60mph moves at approximately 26 metres per second, leaving only approximately 1 second as a margin for error.

The Highway Code makes clear that large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop, meaning that even a 2 seconds delay in reaction time could cause a larger vehicle or motorcycle travelling at 50mph or above to lack the distance required to stop to prevent a collision. Indeed, the extract cautions that 3 [name]. 8250628/6101 (Glanville Consultants Ltd) 4 [name]. 7380.001 ([name]) (Stuart Michael Associates Limited) the distances shown are a general guide, and that the distance will depend on the driver’s attention, the road surface, the weather conditions and the condition of the vehicle at the time.

As such, the extract from the [name] demonstrates that even a car travelling in perfect conditions above 50mph would have a limited margin for error to react and brake in time to avoid a collision, and that the margin for error would likely be minimal or non-existent in the case of larger vehicles and motorcycles. In this regard, the [name] submitted by the appellant shows that the A4 in the vicinity of the site is commonly used by motorcycles, LGVs, HGVs, and buses. Adverse weather conditions, such as rain (which could partially obscure visibility), or a wet / icy road, could increase the risk of an oncoming vehicle not stopping in time still further.

The Crashmap Extract submitted by the appellant shows that no incidents have been formally recorded in the vicinity of the access within the most recent 5 years over which records are held. As only 5 years out of the available 25 years have been selected in the production of this extract, it does not demonstrate that accidents have never occurred in this location. It shows that the risk of collision has not manifested within the selected period, not that no risk exists.

In any event, this extract does not account for near misses. In this regard, interested parties have referred to instances of near collisions at the access, including vehicles pulling out onto the A4 in front of oncoming traffic. Hence, the [name], whilst of relevance, does not alter my finding that the existing access poses a risk to highway safety.

I note the research referred to in part 10.4 of MfS2. This research was confined to assessing urban sites where speed limits were 40mph or less, which limits its relevance to the circumstances under consideration in this appeal. Paragraph 10.5.9 of MfS2 provides that, based on this research, unless there is local evidence to the contrary, a reduction in visibility below recommended levels will not necessarily lead to a significant problem. In this case, the shortfall in the required visibility at the access is considerable, and the deficiencies of the access identified above are corroborated by interested parties, who have referred to near collisions at the access. Considering this local evidence and the remit of the research referred to above, this research does not alter my findings.

The Traffic Survey Results show that 426 vehicles (close to 1% of all vehicles travelling westbound) were exceeding the 60mph speed limit during the surveyed period. This includes at least one vehicle travelling either at or in excess of 76mph in the vicinity of the site on every single day surveyed. 14 vehicles on Sunday 24 September 2023, and 6 vehicles on Monday 25 September 2023, were recorded as travelling westbound either at or in excess of 76mph in the vicinity of the site.

Similarly, the results of the [name] referred to above show that approximately 1% of westbound vehicles were travelling above 60mph within the surveyed period, with a total of 29 vehicles travelling westbound either at or in excess of 65mph in the vicinity of the site on Sunday 11 January 2026. This strongly indicates that these are not ‘one off’ events, and that the carriageway width, available forward visibility, and curvature of the A4 in the vicinity of the site does not deter speeding.

I acknowledge that accidents could potentially occur caused by drivers breaking the speed limit even if all of the relevant design criteria pertaining to the access were achieved. However, due to the substandard visibility at the access mentioned above, the speed of oncoming traffic on the A4 is a relevant factor when considering the risk of collision with a vehicle exiting the access onto the A4, as it affects the distance in which an oncoming vehicle can stop upon identification of a hazard. The observed practice of drivers breaking the speed limit on a daily basis in the vicinity of the site markedly heightens both the risk of collision and the seriousness of any resulting collision.

A drawing submitted by the consultant mentioned above5 shows that a vehicle would likely have to stop on the carriageway to allow a vehicle to exit onto the A4 before entering the access. Interested parties have mentioned that this occasionally happens at the access, including vehicles stopping abruptly on the A4. Highway safety concerns have been raised by interested parties as a result, due to the 60mph speed limit of the A4. That this scenario could occur is consistent with my observations of the width of the access on site, especially considering that vehicles turning right from the access onto the A4 would not always be stopped far enough to the side of the access to allow any incoming vehicle to pass.

I acknowledge that vehicles often have to stop to allow oncoming traffic to pass when seeking to turn right off a main road, but A-roads such as the A4 usually have dedicated right-turn lanes for safety reasons. Indeed, there are several of these along the A4, not far from the site. Although vehicles often slow down when turning into any access, a vehicle stopped dead on the A4 in this location for potentially several seconds, which is an A-road with a 60mph speed limit, would be an unusual and unexpected occurrence from the perspective of oncoming drivers. This exacerbates the risk to highway safety identified above.

The submitted Appeal Statement on Transport Matters excludes the 4 containers proposed to be retained, and only assesses the traffic uplift based on the additional 20 containers proposed. As the baseline relating to an assessment of a retrospective or partly retrospective development must be based on the prevailing circumstances immediately before the unauthorised structures were placed on site, the level of traffic uplift anticipated has been underestimated in that report.

The Appeal Statement on Transport Matters states that it is difficult to find directly comparable sites in TRICS. The surveys used as part of the TRICS dataset found within the Appeal Statement on Transport Matters exclude the weekend, which would likely be a common time for individuals to access the storage containers. The TRICS data also states that at least one survey within the selected data set was undertaken at a time of Covid-19 restrictions, and no further information is given as to how this might have affected the results. Moreover, a total of only 3 days data is included in the results.

Similarly, the TRICS data presented6 as part of the evidence base which resulted in a planning permission for 84 storage containers for self-storage use at [address] Farm7 excluded the weekend, and a total of only 3 days data is included. I note that 2 of the survey dates are over 20 years old, and as such it is unclear 5 [name] ([name]. 7380.002) (Stuart Michael Associates Limited) 6 [name] ([name]) (November 2023) 7 Ref 23/02802/FUL whether they represent current trends regarding the purpose for which storage containers are used by individuals and businesses in the present day. It has not been demonstrated that the mix of domestic / commercial usage at the site is similar to that at the Hall and [name] site (referred to in the same evidence base).

Reference has been made to sites in Kingsclere and Thruxton, but I have not been provided with the underlying evidence base which informed the assessment of projected trips generated at those sites. I have not been provided with data which compares actual vehicle movements with those predicated at those sites. In any event, the accessibility of storage containers is location-dependent, and the evidence in this case does not demonstrate that the storage containers under consideration in this particular location would primarily be used for long-term storage, where customer visits are infrequent.

Therefore, the data presented regarding the likely amount of vehicle movements associated with the proposed development is not particularly robust. Even if the number of vehicle movements generated were considered to be low, there is no way to control the number of trips that the storage containers might generate. The appellant has explained that some of the containers are used by existing local businesses. These are described as primarily for rental on a weekly basis to individuals and businesses.

In this regard, if in addition to the proposed storage containers being used by other individuals and businesses, only a few of the proposed storage containers were to be used by local trades businesses to store building materials and / or tools or equipment for which they require access multiple times a day, the number of trips would likely be much higher than that predicated. This is of concern, considering the risks to highway safety identified above.

Considering the uncertainty with regards to the actual amount of vehicle movements generated by the proposed development, the high volumes of traffic along the A4, the degree to which visibility at the access is substandard, the historic data demonstrating that some vehicles travelling westbound exceed the speed limit on a daily basis, the recollections of near collisions at the access referred to by interested parties, the likelihood of vehicles needing to stop abruptly on the A4 near to the access to let another vehicle exit, and noting that the vehicles would likely be driven by people less familiar with the dangers posed by the access than regular users of the wider site and the occupiers of [address] Farm, I find that the proposed development would unacceptably increase the risk of collision between vehicles on the A4.

It follows that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, which paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets as a threshold for development to be prevented or refused on highways grounds.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on highway safety. It would conflict with part g. of Policy DM42 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted June 2025) (Local Plan Review) which provides that, amongst other things, development will, where necessary, be required to make a proportionate contribution to the provision of or improvement to transport infrastructure including, where relevant, improvements to the safety of the local road network.

Policy SP19 of the Local Plan Review relates to transport impacts rather than highway safety, and so is not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned policy is sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue.

Mention has been made of previous grants of planning permission at [site address] for general industrial and storage and industrial uses. However, as only limited details of these permissions have been provided, the degree to which they are comparable with the proposed development is unclear. The Council’s reasoning underpinning those permissions has not been provided. This is not a matter which alters my findings on the main issue above.

No reasoning is given in the 4th paragraph of the [name] of 10th July 2025 to explain their finding that usage of the existing access is considered acceptable. The matter of trip generation is mentioned in the 7th paragraph of that document, but that reasoning relates to the impact on the surrounding highway network rather than to highway safety. This document does not alter my findings on the main issue above.

The 4 storage containers on site are complementary to other uses on site and are located near to centres of population. The proposed storage containers would also share these characteristics. These matters would be expected of any proposal of this type. The Local Plan Review supports the diversification of existing farms in the countryside, but the submitted plans do not identify the presence of any agricultural units on site. These are neutral matters, which do not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

The existing site plan shows that the area where the 4 storage containers are sited was vacant prior to the 4 storage containers being placed on site, rather than being occupied by a permanent structure. The area for the proposed storage containers is also shown as being vacant on that plan. As such, any utilisation of previously developed land (as defined in the Framework) would be minimal. This matter merits very little weight in favour of the proposed development.

Paragraph 88 a) of the Framework provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas. In relation to this, although it has been mentioned that the storage containers would be used by individuals and businesses, few details have been provided to demonstrate the scale of any benefits to the local area in economic terms. This matter merits little weight in favour of the proposed development.

The benefits of the proposed development are not sufficient to outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with part g. of Policy DM42 of the Local Plan Review cited above. None of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the proposed

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.