Appeal 6006235

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal property is a dwelling served by an existing, open and ungated driveway access to the A1242 [address]. Photographs from the late 19th century and from 1955 show the appeal site was formerly served by a gated entrance, positioned flush with the highway boundary until at least the 1980s. Therefore, whilst historically the access was gated, in recent decades it has been open to the highway.

The proposal would not alter the position, width or geometry of the access, and the proposed siting of the brick piers and gate would reflect the position of the historic gate and would abut the back of the pavement. However, entrance gates are not a characteristic feature of the street scene, since most of the accesses along [address] either do not have a gate or gates are set back from the highway.

There is no record of any incident relating to the former gates and the appellant suggests the strategic function of [address] has evolved since the opening of the [name] in 1992. However, [address] is an urban route toward Norwich’s city centre which Norfolk County Council, the local highway authority (LHA), classifies as a principal road within its route hierarchy, linking primary destinations and carrying high traffic volumes.

Since the proposed gate would sit flush with the pavement, there would be no place of refuge for a vehicle to wait off the public highway. Therefore, the proposal would require vehicles to stop in the highway while the gates are operated.

The carriageway of [address] is relatively narrow. A vehicle waiting in the carriageway would cause other vehicles to either stop or move into the opposite lane and into the path of oncoming vehicles. Therefore, the proposal would obstruct the free flow of vehicular traffic.

Similarly, the pavement is narrow, and a vehicle stopped on the pavement awaiting the operation of the gates would obstruct and inconvenience pedestrians.

As a busy urban route, the flow of traffic would be routinely interrupted, such as from buses serving bus stops, pedestrians crossing the street, vehicles slowing to enter or egress from accesses and side roads or to pass cyclists. In addition, [address] is served by traffic calming measures. However, this does not justify development that would encourage highway users to take risky overtaking manoeuvres of stopped vehicles.

On-street parking is not prohibited in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, the carriageway width and a bend in the road inhibits long distance visibility. Therefore, despite the absence of parking controls, it does not automatically follow that a vehicle stopped in the carriageway is without risk to highway safety.

The appellant suggests the proposed gate would be electronically operated, capable of advance activation and rapid opening, and would operate on a timed or dawn-to-dusk basis, remaining open during the day and closing primarily at night. However, in winter months peak traffic may occur after dark, and therefore I cannot be certain that the gate would only be operated at times of reduced traffic volume. Moreover, conditions relating to the time periods at which the gate may remain open or closed, or the speed of the gate’s mechanical operation could not be reasonably enforced for the lifetime of the development.

The appellant indicates that permission has been granted for substantial residential development which would generate daily vehicle movements onto [address]. A new apartment block has been constructed opposite the site which appears to have an ungated access, and I have been provided no evidence to suggest the development would harm highway safety.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other appeal decisions for driveway gates close to the highway. However, I have not been provided substantive details of the characteristics of the related highways, and therefore I cannot be certain the highway conditions in the cited appeal decisions are comparable to the proposal.

The appeal property is served by an existing vehicular access which would continue to be lawfully used by vehicles irrespective of my dismissal of the appeal. In addition, recent renovation works to the appeal property amalgamated two former dwellings into one, thereby reducing the intensity of the access to serve a single dwelling. However, the open access to the site is of lesser risk to highway safety than the proposed gates which would require vehicles to stop in the highway. Therefore, the proposal would not be justified by the presence of the existing ungated access.

The LHA is a statutory consultee with an advisory role in the decision-making process, and therefore I have had regard to the advice of the LHA in my decision. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm highway safety.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM23 of the Broads Local Plan which requires proposals be assessed in terms of their impact upon the highway network, including in respect of highway safety.

Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require I have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess, and require I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The appeal site contains [name] listed building, [site address] and annexe which dates from the mid-17th century with later additions and alterations, constructed of brick with plain tiled, gabled roof with ridge stacks at intervals, and large external stepped chimney stack.

The appeal property is attached to neighbouring [name]* listed building, [address], which dates from the 17th century, with a slate roof and of red and burnt brick, and colour washed to the north, with quoins at the corners. [name] listed [address] abuts the site, and is a house constructed in approximately 1840 of painted brick with two sash windows and a hipped, black glazed pantile roof. It has two storeys, but one to north owing to slope of ground. The significance of the listed buildings is derived from their special architectural and historic interest.

The site is within the Thorpe St Andrew Conservation Area (CA) which encompasses the area of a historic settlement which stretches along [address]. The CA’s character is defined by its concentration of historic buildings and relationship with the river.

No historic fabric would be lost through implementation of the proposal. The proposed piers and gate would reflect the historic siting of the former gate and would be constructed of brick and timber, and subject to approval of materials, would be capable of achieving an appearance which is sensitive and compatible with surrounding heritage assets.

The effect of the proposal on the significance of the listed buildings and character and appearance of the area is not in dispute between the main parties, and I have identified no conflict myself. I have had regard to the advice of the Authority’s Historic Environment Manager who considers the proposed works are appropriate and in keeping with the character of the area and the setting of the designated heritage assets and raises no objection from a heritage or design perspective. In addition, a separate Listed Building Consent (LBC) application has been approved by the Authority and relates solely to the effect of the works on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed buildings, their setting, and the character and appearance of the CA.

For these reasons, I am satisfied the proposal would comply with the s66(1) and s72(1) and would preserve the listed buildings and the character and appearance of the CA.

The appellant asserts the proposal is required to protect the property from crime and ASB, with instances of drug dealing, urination and defecation, and a vehicle break-in having occurred on the site. The appellant asserts the proposed siting of the gate flush with the highway boundary would be justified since the inclusion of any setback from the highway edge would leave a concealed space with opportunity for crime and ASB to occur.

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a statutory duty on decision makers to consider crime prevention. This duty is embedded in paragraphs 96 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which require development be safe and that crime and disorder and fear of crime do not undermine quality of life.

The appellant confirms the presence of CCTV on the site and police involvement in previous crime and ASB. However, the proposal does not demonstrate that all alternative preventative measures have been exhausted by the relevant agencies. [name] am satisfied the proposal would represent a public benefit through reducing opportunity for crime and ASB by restricting access to the site, this would not outweigh the harm to highway safety for users of a principal A-road.

A neighbouring property has an access door which opens directly onto the driveway and is occupied by a young family. The appellant asserts the gate would reduce the risk of a child accessing the highway.

Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child provides that in all actions concerning children undertaken by public bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Even if I were to consider enclosure of the site necessary to ensure the safety of children, this would not in itself justify the siting of the gate in the proposed location since the LHA suggest it would support a gate set back from the highway. Therefore, the evidence before me does not suggest that dismissal of the appeal would have an adverse impact on children, and such concerns would not justify the highway safety risk.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.