Appeal 6006228

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety.

The appeal site is located off an unclassified lane (hereafter referred to as the lane) which runs from north to south through the village of [site address] . There are barriers at its southern end which prevents its use as a through route for vehicles. In terms of vehicular use, the lane would therefore only be utilised to access the properties that exist along it. However, the lane does connect the village centre, including the primary school, to the community centre and residential dwellings to the south of the appeal site. As such, it is highly likely that it would be well used by pedestrians and cyclists, including children.

The lane has clearly been upgraded in recent times to be more pedestrian friendly, including the installation of modern street lighting. However, in many respects, it has the appearance of a typical country lane, being relatively narrow with hedges either side for the most part. Nevertheless, for much of its route, there are areas where pedestrians and cyclists could move to one side to allow vehicles to pass. Indeed, I note that the plans before me include the proposals for pedestrian refuge areas in the vicinity of the site entrance.

However, the appellant’s own [name] (Advance Consulting Engineers Ltd July 2025), acknowledges that the northern part of the lane, on its approach to the junction with [address], would not have a footway or a pedestrian refuge. In this location the lane is particularly narrow meaning that it would be difficult for pedestrians, including more vulnerable users, to stand aside safely. In my view this is a clear and obvious safety risk, particularly given the likely use of the lane by school children.

I also noted on my site visit that, due to the siting of an existing dwelling, the junction with [address] offers highly restricted visibility to the east as one exits the lane. This again is a clear safety risk.

Much of the appellant’s arguments seem to have been put forward on the basis that the Council did not consider that there would be any such safety issues with regards to a proposal for a dwelling on another nearby site1 which would also be accessed via the lane. Clearly each proposal must be considered on its merits and, where I have found harm, I am not bound by the decisions made by other bodies.

In any event, I am of the view that any additional use of the lane as a result of new development, over and above that which has already been permitted, has the potential to increase the current risk of harm. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the existing number of vehicle journeys along the lane are likely to be quite low, and that the number of additional journeys emanating from the proposed dwelling would also be low, these factors do not alter my conclusion that any increase in use could lead to unacceptable highway safety risks. The lack of any recorded accidents in the area also does not lead me to reach a different decision.

As a result, while I do not find harm in relation to the alignment or condition of the lane, its narrowness at its northern end, and the lack of visibility at the junction with [address] presents an unacceptable risk to highway safety. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM05 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011 – 2031, which in part, seeks to maintain highway safety for all users.

The site is within the [site address] Conservation Area. It’s significance, in so far as it is relevant to this appeal, is derived from the historic layout of the village, its evolution over many years, and the architectural styles and tastes of the time. The surrounding area includes dwellings that are of a range of designs and sizes. The proposed dwelling in this instance would be quite modern in appearance, but given its single storey height, the character of the surroundings, and the natural screening that exists between the site and the lane, I am satisfied that the scheme would not harm the significance of the Conservation Area.

From the evidence before me, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the current figure being 4.86 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of a single new home which could be secured as self-build. This would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for local facilities, and create jobs during the construction phase. The dwelling would likely incorporate sustainable design features and there is also potential for increased biodiversity on site. Despite the level of shortfall in housing land supply, I only afford limited weight to these benefits overall given that they are relatively minor in nature. 1 Council ref: 1/1095/2022

I have concluded that there is potential for material harm in relation to highway safety. The support for the principle of development within the Framework, including making efficient use of land, is countered by the importance it places on avoiding unacceptable impacts to highway safety as set out within paragraph 116. The potential for such harm is a very serious matter, and in this instance, I find that the issue attracts significant weight.

As a result, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, for the reasons given, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.