Appeal 6005357

The appeal is dismissed.

The address on the Decision Notice and appeal form differs from the application form but based on the submitted plans it accurately identifies the appeal site. Accordingly, I have used this site address in the banner heading above.

The main issue is whether the proposed development provides safe access, with particular regards to arrangements for construction and emergency vehicles.

The appeal site forms part of an agricultural field which is currently being used to graze sheep. It is accessed from [address] via [address], which is a narrow, made track which serves four existing dwellings and other agricultural land to the north-west, in the ownership of the appellant.

The submitted plans do not show the width of [address] along its length. However, the appellant states it is generally around 2900mm in width, with a localised pinch-point of 2500mm, which I observed to likely be the point between a drystone wall and the flank of a garage, located close to the [address] junction. Despite its narrow width, there have been no recent recorded accidents on [address] or [address] within the vicinity of the junction.

The ‘Cumbria Development Design Guide’ (CDG) provides recommendations as to the most suitable geometry and best practice advice to use in designing new sections of adoptable highway, which applies to more than new residential estate roads. For most of its length [address] would meet the minimum permissible width of 2750mm for a motor carrying highway identified in the CDG as generally only used for unadopted private accesses and driveways.

However, the typical width for a fire appliance (for assessment purposes) identified in the CDG is 2550mm, not allowing for wing mirrors. Although a [name] to [name],1 the pinch-point I have identified would mean that a fire appliance would not be able to safely access the proposed dwelling via [address] from [address]. Despite the assertion of the appellant, I have little evidence that existing agricultural vehicles accessing the site via the lane are larger than a fire appliance. [address] continues north-west until it meets the A65, but it is unclear whether this could provide safe access for a fire appliance given its width, gradient and surface materials. Moreover, due to its distance from [address], a fire appliance would not be able to access a point within 45m of the proposed dwelling, a UK regulation identified in the CDG.

Figure CW1 of the CDG sets out the average widths expected for vehicles which are likely to require access on residential streets. In addition to a fire appliance, it is evident that large service vehicles, public service vehicles and rigid body lorries would not be able to access the appeal site as they typically exceed 2500mm in width. [name] acknowledge it would be accessible by smaller delivery vehicles, the width of [address] would restrict larger vehicles required for deliveries, particularly during the construction of the proposed dwelling.

The appellant’s evidence is that during recent building works to another dwelling at the end of the lane, wagons used [address] to drop-off/pick-up skips without detriment to either safety or operation. I have no technical evidence to demonstrate that such access could be achieved. Nevertheless, construction work is often undertaken on constrained sites and can be safely managed for the comparatively short period of time it takes. The submission and approval of a [name] or [name] could have been secured by condition should the appeal have been otherwise found acceptable.

The appellant’s automatic traffic count over a seven-day period indicates that [address] is lightly trafficked with vehicles typically moving at low speed (less than 30mph). It has been estimated that the proposed five-bedroom dwelling would have a maximum of three, two-way trips per day. Trips associated with a family dwelling are not always tidal in nature and the figures do not appear to make any allowance for deliveries or visitors to the dwelling. However, the additional vehicle movements associated with the proposed dwelling would be relatively low, and the site is within walking distance of [site address] so some trips may well be undertaken on foot. The proposed self-build dwelling may also reduce the frequency of movements associated with the adjoining land owned by the appellant, including the movement of larger, agricultural vehicles.

Further, the line of sight between the proposed new driveway entrance and the junction with [address] would be largely unimpeded along the length of [address], and thus the meeting of two vehicles travelling in opposite directions could be reasonably avoided and pedestrian safety maintained. I am therefore satisfied that [address] is of sufficient width to accommodate the small day-to-day increase in traffic associated with an additional dwelling and would not result in highway safety concerns in this regard.

It is also understood that refuse bins for the two existing dwellings at the end of the lane are currently collected from the junction with [address]. This is not 1 PROW 540027 uncommon in rural areas, and a similar arrangement would not be unreasonable or impractical for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. There would therefore be no need for refuse vehicles to access the length of [address].

Nevertheless, for the above reasons, fire appliances could not safely access the proposed dwelling. Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires me to consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions. I have therefore given very careful thought as to whether this matter could be addressed by condition. However, I cannot be certain from the information before me that there is an alternative way in which a fire appliance could safely reach the dwelling, or indeed how a fire could be tended, or fire risk mitigated, in a way which could reasonably be controlled by a condition. Moreover, whilst I am aware that many rural lanes are narrow, I do not have any evidence before me of alternative access arrangements or measures which would meet the requirements of the [name].

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not provide safe access, with regards to emergency vehicles. It would conflict with Policy CS10.2 of the [name] (2010) and Policy DM1 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies (2019). Together, these require a proposal to be capable of being served by safe access to the highway network and ensures adequate and safe movement of motor vehicles.

A passing place is proposed alongside the new driveway entrance to the dwelling which the ‘[name]’2 shows would enable two large estate cars to pass in opposite directions. The passing place could be used by all users of [address]. It would be particularly beneficial for the occupiers of the dwelling on the opposite side of the lane who currently have limited visibility towards [address] from their driveway. However, the passing place would not alleviate or mitigate the pinch-point on [address] which prevents safe access for fire appliances. Therefore, although a benefit of the proposal, it is not sufficient in this case to outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.