Appeal 6005322

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘New vehicular access and entrance gates, new fencing, alterations and new fenestrations at ground and first floor, removal of porch, new render finish to walls’ at [site address] in accordance with the application reference 25/00979/VOC, without compliance with condition number 5 previously imposed on planning permission reference 24/00744/HSE dated 24 January 2025 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings; HH-SLP Site Location Plan, HH-100 [site address] - [name], HH-200 [name] [site address] - [name], HH-300 [name] [site address] - Highways.

The new access hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans, including: • The associated driveway, parking and manoeuvring areas have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. These shall be no steeper than 1:12. • The new driveway has been surfaced in a hard, bound material (not rough tarmac) between the [site address] carriageway and a point at least 5.5m inside the site boundary. • Drainage measures have been included which prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway into the public highway. The access and associated works shall thereafter be retained as approved for the lifetime of the development.

The appeal relates to an application which was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. The Council has indicated that it would have refused permission on the basis that the use of the access is unjustified and that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that it would operate safely, including in respect of vehicle movements, passing and visibility.

Planning permission has already been granted for, among other things, the formation of the access, subject to conditions relating to matters including visibility, layout and manoeuvring. That permission would appear to have been implemented as the approved access has been formed, the former access closed, and the highway verge reinstated. In determining that application, the Highway Authority raised no objection subject to those conditions. The principle of the development, and the acceptability of the access in general terms, are therefore established and are not in dispute. However, condition 5 restricts the use of that access to serving [site address] for domestic purposes only.

The appeal seeks to remove that restriction. It therefore follows that the main issues are; • whether the condition is necessary and reasonable having regard to highway safety; and, • whether the condition is necessary for any other planning purpose.

The appeal site comprises [site address] and its associated vehicular access onto the public highway. The site lies within a wider landholding in the same ownership which also includes an adjacent dwelling (converted barn) and land to the rear.

Prior to the grant of planning permission, the site was served by an existing access which provided entry to [site address] and would appear to have also facilitated access to the land to the rear. The approved development relocates that access a short distance along the frontage and secures the closure of the former access. The land to the rear is also accessible from the public highway via a separate existing access located between [site address] and the adjacent dwelling.

Condition 5 restricts the use of the approved access so that it serves only [site address] for domestic purposes. The removal of that restriction would allow the access to be used more widely, including in connection with the adjacent dwelling and the land to the rear.

In practical terms, the removal of condition 5 would allow vehicle movements associated with the land to the rear to take place via the approved access as well as via the access between [site address] and the adjacent dwelling. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that this would result in a material increase in the number or type of vehicles using the public highway, or otherwise materially intensify vehicular activity. Accordingly, I find that the removal of condition 5 would be unlikely to give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

Nor does the evidence indicate that condition 5 is necessary for any other planning purpose. The access itself has already been permitted and implemented, and the remaining planning considerations relating to its physical form, layout and operation are addressed through the other conditions. The possibility of different future patterns of use is speculative and does not reflect the appeal before me. Any material change of use or development which would give rise to different traffic characteristics would be subject to separate planning control rather than through retention of the disputed condition.

I therefore conclude that condition 5 is not necessary or reasonable in the interests of highway safety, nor is it necessary for any other planning purpose. In this respect, the appeal development accords with Policy ST53 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038 (May 2024), which seeks, among other things, to secure well-designed, safe and convenient access that would not compromise the free flow of traffic or increase the risk of accidents or endanger the safety of road users. It follows that the appeal should be allowed and that a new planning permission should be granted without the disputed condition but retaining those non-disputed conditions from the previous permission that remain relevant.

The Council’s statement refers to condition 2, which relates to the approved plans. However, the appeal before me concerns the deletion of condition 5 only. My assessment has therefore been confined to the implications of removing that

The guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that a decision granting planning permission under section 73 should also restate those conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect. [name] have no information before me about the status of the other conditions imposed on the original planning permission, I shall impose all those that I consider remain relevant. In the event that some have in fact been discharged, that is a matter which can be addressed by the parties.

I have not imposed the commencement condition because the original permission has already been implemented, as described above. The plans condition remains necessary in the interests of certainty and clarity. I have also amended and retained a condition relating to the details of the new access and its retention thereafter, as this is necessary in the interests of highway safety and to ensure the access continues to operate in the manner assessed. In doing so, I have framed the condition to reflect the fact that the access has already been constructed, while ensuring that it is retained in the form assessed. I have not reimposed a condition requiring closure of the former access as those works have already been carried out and the condition would therefore serve no useful purpose.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission without the disputed condition and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect.