Appeal 6005404

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached dwelling with associated access and parking at [site address] , Bournemouth, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/02228/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.

The application site is located at the head of a narrow, cul-de-sac known as [address] which currently serves seven residential properties. Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety”.

The Council’s first reason for refusal appears to rest almost entirely on advice from the Local Highway Authority (LHA) who consider [address] is unsuited to the increased traffic that would be generated by the development. Two matters are raised; 1) width, and 2) surfacing. As the Local Highway Authority (LHA) acknowledge, both are existing issues.

Highway safety assessments inevitably involve balancing risk against probability. It is not simply the case that a development served by a substandard access will be unacceptable. In other words, sub-optimal does not mean unacceptable. The generally accepted approach dictates that developers are required to mitigate the impact of their development rather than resolve pre-existing problems on the road network. To that end, the starting point for any assessment is to ascertain the “impact” of the development.

The LHA identifies that there are 7 residential properties served by [address] each generating four movements a day. On that basis, it is stated that the proposed development would increase the number of movements along [address] from 28 to 32 which it considers is “not an insignificant level of use for a such a poor and constrained and unadopted back road”.

However, the LHA’s approach fails to distinguish between existing and development traffic. The percentage impact of the development would be approximately 14%. Put another way, the number of vehicular movements along [address] would go from one every 26 minutes to one every 23 minutes. On any assessment it is difficult to see how that could be material. Since there would be no material increase in traffic movements, there is no need to consider the deficiencies of [address]. Nonetheless, for completeness I set out my thoughts below on these matters.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the surface of [address], while undoubtedly substandard, does not strike me as a highway safety matter. [address] is a private road and therefore its surface and maintenance rests with the frontagers or individual street managers not the LHA. Only if the surface was impacting the public highway in some manifest way, would it be a matter for the LHA. There is nothing before me to demonstrate this is the case.

Turning to width, there can be no dispute that the road is narrow and does not allow for simultaneous two-way flow. However, the road is short and serves only a limited number of dwellings. [name] saw on my site visit, driven speeds along [address] are very low. While users might be sometimes be subjected to a fleeting inconvenience, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate the width of the road causes highway safety issues in practice. That is supported by the accident records which show there have been no recorded incidents on [address] or its junction with [address] since at least 1999.

This along with my own observations, suggests that the small number of drivers who use [address] are acutely aware of its limitations and drive accordingly. On that basis, I have no reason to think that future occupiers of the development would not drive in a similar manner. I accept there might be occasions where vehicles will need to wait for a short time on [address] to allow a vehicle to egress. However, taking account of the ample forward visibility along [address] as well as the characteristics of [address] and the small number of additional movements generated by a single dwelling, this would not pose an unacceptable highway safety risk.

I therefore conclude that the development would not harm the safety of highway users. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policies CS16, CS18 and CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy (October 2012), the [name] (2021) or the NPPF.

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal relates to the failure to mitigate the impact of development on the [name] and New Forest Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Since the application was refused, a [name] has been submitted. This would secure the necessary financial contributions to mitigate the impact of development on the SPAs. Accordingly, I am satisfied that adverse effects upon the integrity, either alone or in-combination, of European and internationally important sites would be avoided. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with [name] PP32 and PP39.

The remaining reason for refusal relates to [name] (BNG). Again, since the application was refused further information has been submitted by the Appellant to demonstrate that the proposed development would provide 10% BNG in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021. The Council has confirmed the acceptability of this information.

I have considered the matters raised by the objectors. These include the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and inadequate parking. However, these matters did not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal and were carefully considered in the [name]. [name] can appreciate some of these concerns, there is no substantive evidence which would lead me to a different conclusion to the Council.

I have imposed a time limit condition to provide certainty. A materials condition is necessary to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. I have also imposed a condition requiring the submission and approval of a Construction Management Plan to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. I have imposed a condition requiring the first five metres of the access to be hard surfaced to prevent gravel and loose stones being deposited on the highway. I have conditioned the Biodiversity Habitats Plan to ensure the development delivers the necessary BNG. I do not consider it necessary for details of cycle parking to be provided for private dwellinghouses.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

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

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first residential occupation of the new dwelling hereby permitted sites parking area as shown on the approved plans must have been laid out and constructed as such, and in a bound material. Thereafter, this area must be permanently maintained and retained as such, kept free from obstruction and available for the purpose specified.

No development shall commence on site (including any site clearance/preparation works), until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period

The dwelling shall not be occupied until the first [address] (measured from the back of the footway) has been surfaced, sealed and drained in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Biodiversity Habitats Plan ref: 618-2-R1 dated 1.10.25.