Appeal 6006729

The appeal is dismissed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

Uttlesford District Council adopted the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 on 26 March 2026 (LP) and subsequent to its refusal of the appeal proposal. Both main parties have been given an opportunity to comment upon the new development plan in relation to the appeal proposal.

I have based my decision upon the replacement LP as opposed to the earlier

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

The appeal property is one of a pair of relatively new, two-storey, detached dwellings located in a residential area and with its access from [site address] , a local road with pavements to either side. Like the adjoining dwelling, it has a private driveway down the side leading to a space in front of the house elevation . Between the two driveways, which extend from the pavement by a few metres, is a landscaped area to their front boundaries.

The proposed development is for the construction of brick piers and wooden gates across the driveway, set in from the back of the pavement by approximately 4.5 metres.

The appellant concedes that if the gates are set in by this amount, then vehicles using the entrance and waiting for the gates to open or close, are most likely to overhang the pavement. The local planning authority (LPA) and the Highway Authority consider that a set-in of a minimum of 6 metres would be more appropriate to prevent this from happening. I do not disagree that such a set-in would achieve this aim for most vehicles.

The appellant considers, evidenced by his survey of pedestrian movements along the pavement on three separate days, each over a three hour period, that on average there are about 3 pedestrians passing along the footpath per hour. He further considers that such a level of usage, plus the limited number of drivers visiting the dwelling, means that there is no substantial risk to highway safety.

However, the pavement exists to provide a safe route for pedestrians including those with a sight impairment and also those, for example, pushing prams or wheelchairs. Vehicles overhanging the pavement would create an additional hazard for users of the pavement and the use of the proposed access by larger vans waiting to enter the driveway would be more likely to require pedestrians to step into the road.

On my site visit, I was able to see that there are currently good sight lines along [site address] at the point of the host property, but such sight lines would be hampered by vehicles parked waiting for the gates to be opened or closed. The situation where traffic generally conforms to the speed limit or, where in the opinion of the appellant, it is further limited by bus stops and roundabouts, does not overcome the potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles which would be caused by the proposed development at the point of entry and exit from the driveway.

I have no information before me to indicate that there have been traffic accidents in the vicinity, though that can give little help as to the future effect of the proposed development in this regard.

Reference is made to other vehicular crossing points along [site address] . However, I have no details of the circumstances which might have applied in such cases. In any event, I have determined the appeal based upon its individual planning merits.

I consider that ,for the above reasons, the piers and gates, set in from the pavement by approximately 4.5 metres only, would represent an unacceptable and avoidable highway safety risk.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with LP policy 27 which requires the delivery of highway safety measures at and around development sites so as to reduce road dangers and to facilitate safe movements for all users and transport modes. It would be contrary to the [name] authority’s Parking Guidance (2024) which requires that vehicle crossings do not adversely affect road safety, and to the Framework which requires safe and suitable access arrangements to sites.

The LPA raises no objections in terms of the design of the proposed pillars and gates, nor to their impact in terms of their effect upon the character and appearance of the area, and I have no reason to disagree.

The appellant considers that the pillars and gates are necessary to provide privacy and security. However, such matters might be achieved by setting them in by a distance sufficient so as not to compromise highway safety.

These are matters which do not outweigh my conclusion upon the main issue.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.