Appeal 6007070

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I saw on my site visit that the development proposed has already been constructed and appeared to be in accordance with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively.

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

The Council’s Transport SPD (2023) (SPD) sets out that 2m x 2m sight lines should be provided where a drive meets the back of the footway, to ensure appropriate visibility between vehicles emerging from the driveway and pedestrians. In this case, the driveway is flanked on either side by brick pillars which abut the pavement edge, with no meaningful set back of the gates from the footway. This arrangement clearly conflicts with the guidance in the SPD and, even accounting for the railings that punctuate the wall, significantly impedes intervisibility between vehicles using the access, cyclists and drivers travelling along [address], and pedestrians using the footway.

There is also no provision within the site for turning, meaning vehicles would need to reverse into or out of the highway. This would increase the likelihood of conflict with pedestrians and other road users. While there is little evidence to suggest that the raised kerb would result in damage to the highway, the absence of a dropped kerb would reduce pedestrians’ ability to anticipate vehicle movements across the pavement. This would be particularly problematic for those with visual impairments or limited mobility, who depend on clear visibility and predictable vehicle movements to navigate safely. Such a risk is exacerbated by the site’s position at the [address] junction and opposite the parade of shops where pedestrian and vehicle movements are higher and more varied. Furthermore, as the gates are not set back from the edge of the highway, vehicles would likely need to wait on the footpath for them to be opened, causing additional obstruction and harm to pedestrian safety.

I note that a driveway appears to have existed for some time and that the former boundary hedge would likely have restricted visibility between the road and driveway. However, the wall, pillars and gates formalise this access and restrict visibility permanently. No evidence has been provided regarding the accident data in this location. Even if no collisions have been recorded, this would not capture near misses nor does it convince me that a potentially unsafe arrangement should be maintained in perpetuity. Accordingly, the previous arrangement does not justify a development that is detrimental to highway safety.

I accept that the access is set some distance from the bus stop, and that no changes have been made to the road, pavement or level of parking. There is also no dispute regarding the effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, these matters do not overcome the identified risk or justify a harmful development where the effects could be significant and long lasting. I have also considered nearby properties, including Nos 23, 27 and [address], which take access across the pavement. I do not know the planning history of these schemes. However, from what I saw, these either benefit from a dropped kerb or do not occupy a corner plot position. That said, these properties are also likely to encounter similar highway safety issues, and do not serve to demonstrate that the development is acceptable.

Consequently, the development has an unacceptable effect on highway safety. It therefore conflicts with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) and Saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) insofar as they require, amongst other things, for developments to provide good design and maximise highway safety. It is also contrary to the public safety aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR