Appeal 6005824

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as a proposed front wall and gate (retrospective) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00937/FULH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted is as shown on drawing numbers: 98/She/02, Site Plan, Block Plan

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The front garden is used for parking and clearly was the previous situation given that many dwellings follow this pattern. Resultantly, pedestrians would be aware of this existing situation. The road is a relatively slow road as an off shoot from the adjacent dual carriage way with traffic calming measures of speed bumps and double yellow lines restricting parking, with a 30 mile per hour speed limit.

The walls and the gate sit in line with the existing boundary treatments along this side of the road. The piers siding the vehicular entrance are an increased height compared with surrounding situations. Resultantly, any vehicle exiting the parking area must edge forward with the bonnet entering the pathway to ensure full visibility in both directions. However, this is not significantly different from the current situation with other dwellings. Furthermore, the pavement is sufficiently wide enough, that any manoeuvring around a vehicle on the pedestrian pathway would not force pedestrians onto the road. The pathway either side of the vehicular exit is relatively unencumbered with only a small tree which would not hinder any views. Resultantly, the lack of setback would not result in unacceptable or severe highway harm to users.

The appellant has confirmed and as viewed on site, the gate is electric and would not require the user to exit their vehicle to open or close the gates. Therefore, any momentary pause in the highway waiting for the gates to open would be no different to pausing for traffic to pass when turning on the far side of the road. On the nearside, given the slow section of road along with the adjacent speed bumps, the short moment of impedance would not so be significant to resist to cause an unacceptable effect on the free flow of traffic.

Collectively, these matters would not have an unacceptably compromising effect on highway safety. Resultantly, the proposal would comply with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 2018 which seeks to ensure that highway safety is secured for the users of new and existing development.

I have not included a time limit or materials conditions due to the retrospective nature of the scheme and my findings. I have referred to the approved plans for enforcement purposes. The Council has recommended a condition in which visibility details are to be submitted and approved. As the acceptability of the proposal has been considered without these, a condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme conforms with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the condition set out above.