Appeal 6004741

The appeal is dismissed.

The walls and gates were in place at the time of my site visit.

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

The A428 [address] is a busy primary route with one lane of traffic in each direction, footways on both sides and a 30mph speed limit as it passes through [site address] . It is lined here with rows of houses and the odd commercial property, some with fences, walls and gates at the front. No 140, typically for this area, is a detached house, set well back from the street with direct access to [address] and a parking area in front of the house.

The parking area is enclosed by the appeal walls and gates, with the gates swinging inwards, away from the street. The Council’s concern, based on advice from the County Highway Authority, is that the gates are not set far enough back from the public highway to allow vehicles to safely pull off the street before stopping to open the gates.

The 2 councils (the planning authority and highway authority) seem a bit confused and inconsistent regarding the required set back for gates. 2 different measurements are referenced – from edge of carriageway or edge of public highway – with the required set back quoted as 5m. In contrast, the highway authority’s [name] (WDG) advises that gates should be set at least 5.5 metres back from the back of the public highway footway. The WDG was adopted following public consultations, but does not appear to have any formal status in the planning system. I therefore treat it as good advice rather than

The gates at No 140 are set back about 4.7m from the edge of carriageway and about 2.9m from the back of the footway. This means most cars could, with care, pull off the carriageway, perpendicular to the street, when the gates are shut. In doing so, however, they would fully block the footway. Any pedestrians trying to pass while a vehicle is stopped outside the gates would have to step into the carriageway, creating a potentially dangerous situation especially for people with mobility issues. This footway appears to be well used and the street is heavily trafficked, so any potential footway blockage could be significant. The Council also refers to the existence of a bus stop/layby across the street, but I do not consider that this would add extra risk as buses can pull off the main carriageway.

I note that the gates are electronically controlled, which means that in normal use by No 140’s occupiers they could be opened without the need to wait any significant time outside the gates. Visitors would, however, potentially need to wait longer to gain access. I also note that traffic speeds should be fairly low here, that driver visibility is good along this straight section of road and that records show no recent traffic accidents nearby. I also take into account that vehicles can park in the street, so that visitors and delivery drivers do not necessarily have to access the site. Finally, I see that there are some other examples of gates relatively close to the carriageway on [address], but these are fairly few and would not justify unsafe development.

On balance, the positive factors here are not sufficient to override my concerns about the potential blockage of the footway by vehicles waiting to enter the site. I conclude that the proposal would unduly prejudice the safety of public highway users. It conflicts with Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031 policy D1 and the National Planning Policy Framework, which aim to ensure safe access is provided to sites.

I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and see no overriding reasons to justify a decision in conflict with adopted policy. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.