Appeal 6006724

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission1 was granted in 2021 (the 2021 consent) for the development described in the banner heading above. This included conditions 30 and 31, which required both the site access and [name] (TMS) to be delivered prior to the first occupation of the first dwelling in the development. The appellant is seeking to vary the time trigger associated with these conditions to require the delivery of the site access and TMS prior to the first occupation of the final dwelling in the development. A temporary site access arrangement would be implemented prior to the first occupation of the first dwelling in the development, which would be used for the duration of the intervening period.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether the time trigger for conditions 30 and 31 is necessary and reasonable in the interests of highway safety.

In allowing the 2021 consent, the Inspector noted that road safety audits had been undertaken in respect of the access arrangements and the proposed traffic 1 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/T3725/W/21/3270663 calming scheme. On the basis that every expert highway and transport professional who has looked at the proposals had agreed they are safe, the Inspector concluded that there were no policy or technical grounds as to why the access would be substandard, unattractive or unsafe, and imposed the conditions accordingly. Minimal information is before me surrounding the given time trigger for these conditions and, for example, whether there had been any alternative time trigger suggested and discussed at the Inquiry.

There is no dispute between the parties that the approved site access, with a 1- way priority for vehicles entering the site at the crossing point with an existing bridleway, and the TMS, incorporating traffic calming measures elsewhere including 3 areas of flush block paving and a 20mph zone, are required. Moreover, it is evident the appellant is not attempting to renege on these works. The proposed temporary site access arrangement primarily differs in that it would provide a 2-way junction, including a footway, with no buildouts at the crossing point with the bridleway.

However, the approved site access and TMS are required to mitigate the impact of a residential scheme with outline consent for up to 200 dwellings. There is no indication of the likely timeframe that the requested varied time trigger for the implementation of these works would be reached. Consequently, there is the real prospect that a substantial number of dwellings on the site could be occupied for a significant period of time if the approved site access and TMS is not implemented until the majority of the construction work has been completed. Associated comings and goings by a range of transport modes would use the temporary access rather than the approved site access and TMS, which were found to be necessary in the interest of highway safety.

I appreciate that the proposed variation is presented as a pragmatic approach to avoid the likely need to repair the approved site access and TMS from damage caused by construction traffic, including heavy goods vehicles, tracking over them during the construction phase. Nevertheless, limited details are before me of the likely extent of damage and what the consequences of this would be.

A lack of objection to the proposal from the Local Highway Authority and that the final scheme would remain unchanged is noted. However, there is no compelling evidence before me, such as a technical report, demonstrating that the temporary arrangement with a 2-way junction, rather than a priority 1-way junction, and the absence of traffic calming measures elsewhere, would not result in an adverse impact on highway safety during a potentially lengthy intervening period. Therefore, I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that the variation of the time trigger would not represent a hazard to highway users.

For the above reasons, I have found that the time trigger for conditions 30 and 31 is necessary and reasonable in the interests of highway safety. Accordingly, the proposed variation of the time trigger would conflict with Policy T1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029, which requires developments to, amongst other things, provide safe, suitable and attractive access for a variety of users and are not detrimental to highway safety.

The appellant claims that the appeal scheme would allow for the occupation of both market and affordable housing to be brought forward earlier than the wording of the conditions currently allows. However, this has not been substantiated with details of the timescale implications of delivering the approved site access and TMS prior to the first occupation of the first dwelling compared to that of the final dwelling. As such, I give this matter limited weight in the planning balance.

The appellant points out that Council Officers recommended the application for approval. Members of the Council’s Planning Committee are not duty bound to follow the advice of their Officers. Therefore, these matters do not lead me away from my conclusion on the main issue in this case.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations put forward in support of the proposed scheme do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.