Appeal 6002805

The appeal is allowed, and the details submitted pursuant to conditions Nos 5 and 6 attached to planning permission Ref 23/0067/REM granted on 2 August 2023 in accordance with the application dated 14 November 2024 and the plans submitted with it are approved.

The application was made in the name of [name] (Barnoldswick) Ltd. The appellant has advised that the name of the company has since changed to [name] (Barnoldswick) Ltd, but that the companies remain the same legal entity. Accordingly, I have used the new company name in the banner heading above.

The address given for the appeal site differs on the application form, appeal form and decision notice. For consistency, I have taken the address in the banner heading above from the decision notice for the Reserved Matters and I am satisfied that this reflects the actual geographic location of the site.

The Council raised no issue in respect of the details relating to Condition 5. Nothing that I have read or seen suggests that a contrary view should be taken, and I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The appellant has submitted two amended plans 1, which show the metal barrier revised to a field gate, but it would be in the same location close to the junction of the internal pedestrian and cycle link and [address]. Given the minor nature of the revision, I do not consider that any prejudice arises to the interests of other parties, and accordingly I have taken these plans into account in my decision.

Outline planning permission was granted in 20202 for ‘residential development of 1.48ha (access only).’ [name] 2023, Reserved Matters were subsequently approved3 for 30no. dwellings. Condition 6 required that: ‘Notwithstanding the plans submitted, prior to occupation of the first dwelling the internal pedestrian and cycle link between the estate and [address] shall be constructed in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the local planning authority to include details of construction, surfacing, drainage and barriers at its junction with [address] and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.’

The main issue is whether the details in respect of Condition 6 would be acceptable, with particular regards to highway safety.

The submitted details show a 3m wide footpath which would be finished in a ‘rural gravel.’ It would provide a link between the new housing and the eastern side of [address] to the north-east of [address], as well as on towards the canal which includes a cycleway. Close to [address], the footpath would split and a section would dogleg and run broadly parallel to the lane. I observed that this would be obstructed by an existing lamppost and telegraph pole which are sited in the footway adjacent the appeal site and outside the control of the appellant.

Unless relocated, the lamppost and telegraph pole would significantly restrict the width of the footpath at this point and it would be difficult for pedestrians to pass, and particularly for wheelchair or mobility scooter users, or for people with pushchairs. Given the obstruction, most pedestrians would likely exit directly onto [address] at a point where there is no existing footway. There is a dropped kerb to the driveway of the adjacent dwelling, so if travelling toward [address] pedestrians and other users would need to walk along the lane for a short distance. 1 [name] & [name] – HH/SRB/PSO/01 [name]; and [name] 2299-SCE-00-00-DR-C-0024-P04 2 APP/E2340/W/20/3250622 3 [name]. 23/0067/REM

However, the gap in the drystone wall along the frontage of the appeal site, and its relatively low height, ensures good visibility in both directions along [address] when leaving the footpath. Furthermore, during my lunchtime site visit, I observed [address] to be a lightly trafficked, pleasant walk which is already well used by pedestrians. Using the lane for such a short distance would not therefore represent a highway safety risk to users.

The Council has confirmed that the field gate resolves concerns that the barrier would not allow for free movement of people. Based on the evidence, I have no reason to form a different view. Accordingly, the internal pedestrian and cycle link between the estate and [address] would reasonably function as such and would provide safe and suitable access for all users.

Therefore, I conclude that the details in respect of Condition 6 would be acceptable, with particular regards to highway safety. The proposal accords with the National Planning Policy Framework where it requires safe and suitable access be achieved for all users, and that development should only be prevented on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.