Appeal 6006122

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/FUL/2025/03681 for demolish garage/stores and erect a pair of two bedroomed cottages at [site address] , Weymouth [postcode] granted on 15 September 2025 by Dorset Council is varied by deleting condition 5.

I have used the address contained within the Council’s decision notice for clarity and precision.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who do and do not share a protected characteristic. From the evidence, my decision has the potential to affect persons with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED.

The Council granted permission subject to conditions for the following: ‘Demolish garage/stores and erect a pair of two bedroom cottages’.

The disputed condition relates to the provision of a level access pedestrian/wheelchair route. Consequently, the main issue in this appeal is whether the condition is necessary and reasonable having regard to highway safety and the provision of a safe and suitable access to the site for all future occupants of the appeal scheme.

The appeal site (the Land) is located at the rear of [address] (No 53). It is accessed from Park Lane, which is a one-way, adopted highway, that does not benefit from a designated pavement. There are no steps to access the appeal site from Park Lane. The Land is relatively near to the junctions of [address] North with both Park Lane and [address].

The proposed access route subject of condition 5 would be via the existing building (No 53) to enable future occupants to access [address] without the need to use Park Lane and [address] North.

Paragraph 57 of the of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines a number of tests in relation to planning conditions. These are: that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other aspects.

Additionally, I am cognisant of paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework in so far as they highlight respectively, amongst other things, that development should ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users as well as only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

I acknowledge the limited pavement on Park Lane and the comments provided by the Highways Authority during the application process regarding the likely additional pedestrian movements directly onto Park Lane which would result as a consequence of the appeal scheme. [name] do note, the Highways Authority also refer to anticipated low and infrequent pedestrian and cyclist movements in its comments regarding a short section of footpath along the eastern frontage of the cottages.

Nevertheless, on balance, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the deletion of condition 5 would result in significant harm to highway safety for pedestrians. Especially given that the removal of the garages as part of the appeal scheme would likely reduce some level of vehicular movements to and from the site as well as the close proximity of the junction of Park Lane with [address] North (the latter of which benefits from a designated pavement).

In addition, there are possible refuge areas for pedestrians along Park Lane due to the forecourt/garage court that front the street albeit these are not formalised.

The Council has highlighted that the pedestrian/wheelchair route is important to provide safe and accessible access for all future users of the site including individuals with a protected characteristic as outlined in the PSED. The negative effect of allowing the appeal is that the proposed route for individuals with a protected characteristic may not be provided.

However, given the layout of the appeal site, its relationship with Park Lane and [address] North as well as the alternative route available to future occupants to access [address] via these roads, it remains on balance, that there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate a clear justification for the proposed route and thus condition 5.

Regarding the Highways Authority position in relation to 2 [name], Park Lane, I do not have the full circumstances of the approved application before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and given the scale and specific context of the appeal scheme before me it does not lead me to a different conclusion.

Given all of the above, in conclusion, the removal of condition 5 would not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety for future occupants including individuals with a protected characteristic as outlined in the PSED. Accordingly, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy COM7 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 insofar as it seeks to minimise the need to travel and maximise the use of sustainable transport modes as well as prevent any severe detrimental effect on highway safety. Consequently, I do not find condition 5 to be reasonable or necessary.

The appeal site is within the [name] for the following: Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs Special Area of Conservation (SAC), [name] and the Chesil & The Fleet SAC.

The Chesil & the [name] has the following habitats and qualifying features: coastal lagoon, mediterranean and thermos-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticoia), perennial vegetation of stony banks and annual vegetation of drift lines.

[name] is a disused brickpit which has important geological features and contains several ponds that support [name]. The site also contains a variety of habitats used by the newt, including grassland, scrub and quarry spoil.

The Isle of Portland to [name] forms a single unit of cliffed coastline which is formed of hard limestone, with chalk at the eastern end interspersed with slumped sections of soft cliff of sand and clays. It supports species rich calcareous grassland with species such as wild cabbage Brassica oleracea var. oleracea, early spider-orchid Ophrys sphegodes and Nottingham catchfly Silene nutans. The semi-natural dry grasslands also contain, amongst other things, extensive species rich examples of CG4 Brachypodium pinnatum grassland in the southern part of its UK range.

Given the specific nature of this appeal regarding condition 5, I am satisfied as a competent authority that there would be no likely significant effects either alone or in combination to the integrity of the aforementioned sites and their relevant features.

The Council has also indicated that the site is within a SSSI risk zone with the closest designation to the site being the [name]. I consulted Natural England however no details of any harmful effects on the SSSI have been indicated. Accordingly, in the absence of any objections, I have no reason to find any harm to the SSSI.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (the CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The buildings within the CA date to around the middle of the 19th Century with many dating from the Victorian and Edwardian eras. A notable characteristic of the CA are the garden walls which adjoin the footpaths. When considered together, these features contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Bearing in mind the extent, nature and location of the appeal scheme, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved.

The appeal site is near to the [name] listed [address] ([address]) which is a detached house that dates from around 1830-1840 as well as [address] which is listed as the [name] dating from around 1870.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the duty, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The significance of these building derives from their architectural interest and historic fabric. Nevertheless, given the location and extent of the appeal development, I consider that it would preserve the setting of the listed buildings and the contribution it makes to their significance.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.