Appeal 6003572

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for creation of parking space and repositioning of street sign at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1/0575/2025/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 1001B, 1002B, and 1003.

Notwithstanding the description in the banner heading above, the appellant requested an amendment be made to refer to the repositioning of a street sign, rather than its removal. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis and have altered the description of development in the formal decision accordingly.

The main issue is whether the proposal would provide a safe and suitable access.

There is no dispute that the proposal would be within 10 metres of a junction, which would conflict with the Council’s informal guidance for highways and traffic management. The Highway Authority is particularly concerned that those emerging from the proposed parking space in a forward gear would have limited visibility towards [address] and of vehicles turning left into [address]. My own observations were that the low-level wall at the front of the property would still allow for a good amount of visibility of vehicles indicating and turning into the cul-de-sac. Moreover, those exiting the appeal site could also opt to turn around in the cul-de-sac.

It is agreed that there would be a number of options for manoeuvring into the appeal site either in a forward gear or reversing. This would not entirely depend on the direction of travel taken to it from [address], as suggested. Drivers of vehicles could turn around at the bottom of the cul-de-sac and enter the parking space in either direction. Additionally, a property opposite has a dropped curb and off-street parking. This is very likely to mean that circulation space around the appeal site would be available to carry out unrestricted manoeuvres.

At the time of my visit, vehicles were parked along [address] and right up to the junction next to the appeal site, suggesting some parking pressures exist in the area. It was necessary to turn slowly into the cul-de-sac as a result. In a situation comparable to the opposite arrangement, the proposal would prevent on‐street parking at the junction, thereby improving overall visibility at this point. It would also remove one additional vehicle from the road, which would, to a modest degree, ease local parking pressures.

Furthermore, as the cul-de-sac only serves a small number of properties over a notably short road, vehicle speeds are likely to be very low. Consequently, road users would be likely to be aware of vehicles entering or exiting the appeal site. This would avoid unduly compromising the flow of traffic or the safety of all users in accordance with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Overall, even though visibility splays may not meet guidance laid out in the Manual for Streets, I conclude a safe and suitable access would be achieved. There would be no conflict with policies DM05 and DM06 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan, which, together in this respect require a safe and well-designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking, and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians.

I have imposed a plans condition in the interests of clarity.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.