Appeal 6005273

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description of development is taken from the application form. However, the decision notice more accurately describes the proposed development as formation of dropped kerb and new vehicle access.

The appellant has included amended plans as part of their appeal submission. The plans include a reduced width access, an increase in the size of the driveway for parking and manoeuvring, and new soft landscaping. These amendments are a fundamental change to the proposal and have not been part of a consultation process. The Planning Inspectorate’s Procedural Guide for appeals1 makes clear that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at application stage. As such, I have not accepted the amended plans and have determined the appeal on the same basis as the Council.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • highway safety on [address]; and • the character and appearance of the area. 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals- England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (May 2026)

The appeal site is located on [address] but does not have vehicular access from this road; there is parking to the rear of the dwelling accessed from [address].

[address] is a classified road with two-way traffic, subject to a 30mph speed limit. It has double-yellow lines on the north side of the road, but not on the south side of the road where the appeal site is located. From the evidence before me, and my site visit, it is clear that this is a heavily trafficked road.

The proposal is for a dropped kerb and new vehicular access from [address]. There would be no turning space provided on the site, and therefore vehicular access and egress movements would be directly on to and off of [address].

The Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2021) advises that proposals should provide safe access to the highway, and vehicles must egress typically in forward gear to ensure safety for all road users. The proposed development would result in vehicle access and egress movements directly on to and off of [address] which would be detrimental to the safety of all road users, and would unacceptably affect the free flow of traffic. On-street parking is not restricted on the south side of [address] where the appeal site is located; in the event that cars were parked either side of the proposed access this would reduce visibility and further increase highway safety risk for all road users.

The appellant has provided photographs of other properties which have vehicular access from [address]. Addresses and full details were not provided, and therefore I cannot be certain they are comparable to the appeal before me. However, from my site visit I observed that the majority of properties with vehicular access from [address] have space on site for turning to enable vehicles to exit the site in a forward gear.

I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable and detrimental effect on highway safety on [address]. As such, it would conflict with policies KS11 and KS12 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1- [name] (2014). These policies seek, amongst other things, that development provides safe access.

The character of the surrounding area is primarily residential. The appeal property is located within a group of five detached bungalows which are similar in character and appearance. These dwellings are set back from [address] with generous front gardens, and low brick walls and vegetation form the front boundaries.

Properties in the wider [address] area are also generally set back a generous distance from the road. The front boundary treatments vary; however, the majority include some vegetation which gives the area a verdant feel. Most properties have vehicular access from [address], and therefore the aforementioned group of five bungalows including the appeal site are anomalous in this respect.

The proposal to form a new vehicular access would result in the frontage to the appeal site appearing different to the other four bungalows in the immediate vicinity. However, as most properties on [address] have vehicular access from this road the proposal would be in keeping with the prevailing character of the surrounding area.

Policy HWNP11 of the Highcliffe and Walkford Neighbourhood Plan (2023) seeks, amongst other things, that parking provision should not dominate the street scene. The proposed driveway, given its modest size, would not dominate the street scene, and a considerable amount of the front garden area would remain. I acknowledge that some of the existing low-level vegetation and brick wall on the front boundary would be removed, however some vegetation and brick wall would be retained and therefore the proposed front boundary would be in keeping with the surrounding frontages and the verdant character of the area.

I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would accord with policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1- [name] (2014) and policy HWNP11 of the Highcliffe and Walkford Neighbourhood Plan (2023). These policies seek, amongst other things, that development reflects and enhances local distinctiveness, and that parking provision should not dominate the street scene.

The Council’s appeal questionnaire notes that the development is in, near or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), but the Council does not explain the significance of this, nor does the evidence before me demonstrate that a SSSI or SNCI would be affected by the proposed development . [name] am dismissing the appeal for another reason there is no need for me to seek clarification on these matters. They do not affect my overall conclusions on this proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.