Provision of new driveway, the erection of a 1.22m high gate set back 5m from the highway and removal of existing hard surface

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 February 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/17/3187904 The Barn, The Straight Mile, Shurlock Row, Reading, RG10 0QP  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr G Mornard against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead  The application Ref 17/02327, dated 23 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is the provision of new driveway, the erection of a 1.22m high gate set back 5m from the highway and removal of existing hard surface. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached dwelling in a countryside location which presently shares an accessway via a long drive to the B3018, The Straight Mile, with a nearby home (Glebe Farm Cottage) in the same ownership. This access emerges on a straight length of the road running through a scattered hamlet which has a 40mph restriction in place that starts a little to the west. The proposal is as described above with the intention being that the appeal property would gain an individual access to the highway and the existing gateway would remain to serve the Cottage. Highway safety 4. The Council is concerned, in summary, that the access would: a) hinder safety and freeflow of traffic by reason of a numerical increase in access points; b) have a similar impact by reason of the proposed siting of gates; and c) give rise to unacceptable impact on road safety due to the provision of inadequate visibility splays. 5. The Council cites the Highway Authority’s Design Guide which seeks to restrict new access points to classified roads and create a hierarchical arrangement of junctions. The case is made that more junctions or points of access results in greater interruption of the flow on a main road and impacts upon safety. I can Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3187904 2 entirely see the logic behind this stance and arranging for new traffic generating development to be suitably accessed within the hierarchy would almost certainly always be appropriate. However, the approach is guidance and provided an access is safely constructed I would take the Appellant’s side in this instance. Movements on and off the main road, which would be very limited for 2 individual residential properties, would not change in number or nature in this particular instance and thus the numerical matter of one or two accesses should not be a determining factor here to my mind. 6. Concern b) of the Council relates to whether the gates would be sufficiently clear of the highway to ensure a vehicle was not projecting dangerous outwards into the road whilst waiting to access. The Council considers that the stated 5m set back would need to be 7m back from the adopted carriageway. On this point I entirely agree with the Appellant that this is an issue which, all other matters being satisfactory, could be very suitably dealt with by way of a planning condition. 7. Notwithstanding the above two paragraphs the question of visibility splays is critical to highway safety in my opinion. The point of the planned access lies just within the 40mph speed marker on a straight stretch of road. From my observations I have no reason to doubt the Parish Council’s commentary that vehicles may often reach this point before they have suitably slowed down. It seems to me that more than ever in this specific location there should be no flexibility on the question of providing visibility splays to the full standard. The existing shared access can achieve this. I am not convinced that the planned access point has the same ability. There may be some informal agreement between neighbours but there is no meaningful landownership by the Appellants to the west of the planned access point, vegetation growth is marked, and the verge includes a ‘gateway’ entrance feature to the hamlet along with poles for signs. In the circumstances I do not have compelling evidence before me that clear visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m can be achieved in a suitable and sustained manner and consequently I would conclude that the planned access would be contrary to the interests of protecting highway safety. 8. Saved Policy TR5 of the Council’s Local Plan seeks access arrangements which are safe and in compliance with relevant standards. I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to this policy. Other matters 9. I understand the wish to secure individual access points for the two properties and I have carefully considered the points raised by the Appellant. However these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issues identified above. 10. The National Planning Policy Framework has been considered and the development plan policy which I cite mirrors relevant objectives within that document. 11. I would add that the site lies in Green Belt. The suitability or otherwise of the proposed development within Green Belt in local and national policy terms is a matter which I would have considered had I been minded to approve the scheme. I might have gone back to the main parties for their comments before reaching a decision. However as I find that the proposal would be Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3187904 3 unacceptable for the main issue addressed above I need not consider questions relating to Green Belt any further. Overall conclusion 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on highway safety. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR