Appeal 6007515

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a detached property on a wedged corner plot at the edge of a settlement. With an existing access, it is positioned between a railway line and characterful winding, hedge-bound rural lane that adjoins a golf course. The neighbouring property has [address] together which read more as a single entity. This property’s frontage is bound by stone walling together with delicately designed metal gates. Other properties along this lane tend to have more open frontages than continuous hedgebanks.

The proposed additional vehicular access, parking, and turning area would require the removal of a substantial section of undisturbed hedgebank. While there is some netting associated with the golf club, this is not particularly noticeable or intrusive.

Although the gates would be set back and constructed from a muted timber, they would nevertheless be unusually tall, which would do little to draw one’s attention away from them. Unlike nearby properties, these would be surrounded by a starkly engineered, rendered blockwork, with a prominence that would not add to the overall quality of the area. The cumulative effect of these interventions would create an uncharacteristic and overtly urbanised form in an otherwise verdant strip of land. The appellant offers replacement planting, though it is not clear how this would satisfactorily mitigate against the identified harm, let alone enhance it.

For these reasons, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with policies DE1 and C1 of the Torbay Local Plan (LP) and Policy BH5 of the Brixham Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan, which, in this respect and amongst other things, seek to ensure developments acknowledge and respect local character, have a clear urban structure that integrates with the surrounding context, whilst evolving high quality architectural detail with a distinctive and sensitive palette of materials.

It is asserted that the Council’s concerns are based on a perceived lack of information rather than evidence of actual harm. It is however important to note that the evidential burden is placed on the appellant in respect of the level of harm.

I agree with the appellant that further detail could be sought in relation to visibility splays. However, the access would be just past a tight bend in the lane where I noticed visibility of oncoming vehicles was restricted. This differs somewhat from the road conditions associated with the neighbouring property’s access, which includes a wide splay along a straighter stretch of road. Furthermore, having spent some time observing traffic movements, there was an overwhelming tendency for drivers of vehicles to travel hurriedly rather than progress with caution along the lane. There were also several instances where traffic flow was disrupted by the requirement to reverse. Although just a snapshot in time, my observations nevertheless provide some flavour of vehicular movements in this specific location. In this particular case, they also go to show that visibility splay details ought to be provided ahead of the grant of permission.

It is acknowledged that the gate’s set back would provide a pull-in opportunity for drivers of vehicles and others. Even so, the proposed layout does not convincingly demonstrate that road users would have advanced warning of or be expecting vehicles to emerge from the new access. Similarly, even with a convex mirror, those emerging from the appeal site would be unlikely to have a clear view of approaching vehicles or other road users in either direction. It is therefore likely that much greater visibility splays would be required to ensure a safe and suitable access is delivered. This could have further implications in respect of the first main issue.

Although the proposed set back may provide sufficient space for some vehicles to clear the lane, it falls well short of the Council’s expected standards. Larger family vehicles or those that may be required for household maintenance could struggle to avoid encroachment onto the highway before opening or closing the gates. Furthermore, the argument that the proposal would be used occasionally is understood, though future occupiers may also choose the operate the access in a different way. Accordingly, there would be no way to control any such movements which means this matter can only be afforded limited weight. For the reasons given, the proposal would be very unlikely to improve upon the safety of current access arrangements.

In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would be likely to have a harmful effect on highway safety. As a consequence, there would be conflict with LP Policy TA2, which requires a safe standard of access with satisfactory visibility.

Part of the justification for the proposal appears to have been advanced with the appeal, rather than prior to the Council’s determination. It is not clear whether or not the Council had an opportunity to weigh this in the balance. [name] been otherwise minded to allow the appeal, I could have sought further comment in this respect. Even so, it is asserted that because there is no vehicular access to the rear garden, all materials, equipment, and waste, including the servicing of a septic tank must pass through the house. This is said, amongst other things, to be unsafe, hazardous, impractical, unhygienic, and inefficient.

However inconvenient this may be, there is little substantive evidence that the existing arrangements, which are likely to have been going on for some time, are unsatisfactorily harmful or unmanageable. Within that context, and consistent with the submitted plans, I did note at my visit that there is an external gap between the property and roadside hedge that could conceivably be utilised or adapted for such servicing. Even if it could not, although the proposal would be likely to improve the living conditions of the existing occupiers, any such benefits would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area or highway safety.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations individually or cumulatively to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.