Retrospective application for brick pillars and double gates to the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by P Hatch BA (Hons) Ad. Dip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005800 30 Lawefield Avenue, Rothwell, Leeds, LS26 0PT • 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 Eduard Lavelle against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 25/06436/FU. • The development proposed is described as ‘retrospective application for brick pillars and double gates to the rear’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. For certainty, I have used the description of development given on the Council’s Decision Notice in the banner heading above. 3. I have noted that permission is being sought retrospectively for this development. This matter is not in dispute between the parties, and I have been able to confirm the retrospective nature of this development during my site visit. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety. Reasons 5. Haigh Side Drive is a residential estate road through the eastern area of Rothwell. The road outside of the appeal site is relatively straight, affording good views in both directions and has a speed limit of 20mph. The access point into the rear of the appeal property is positioned directly opposite to the junction of Haigh Side Drive and the cul-de-sac of Haighside. I observed during my site visit that Haigh Side Drive was relatively lightly trafficked and the speed of vehicles was reflective of the speed limit for the area. 6. The proposed double gates to the rear of the appeal property measure a maximum of 2.4m in height and have an overall width of 3.1m, equating to approximately 1.5m in width for both individual gates. The host property has solid double gates which open outwards from the appeal property onto a relatively short driveway before accessing the public highway. 7. I note the appellants position which indicates that the new brick pillars and gates are replacing older structures and will be of broadly similar dimensions. I also note Appeal Decision 6005800 2 that the vehicular driveway from the rear of the appeal property onto Haigh Side Drive has existed for a number of years and its status is not in dispute between the two parties. However, notwithstanding that these access arrangements have been in place for a number of years, the Council remain concerned of these arrangements, particularly the ability of vehicles to safely access and egress from the appeal property onto the public highway. 8. Due to the presence of a hard standing area to the rear of the appeal property, vehicles wishing to exit the appeal property onto Haigh Side Drive would be able to do so in a forward-facing fashion and without the need for reversing out onto the public highway. However, I note the Council’s concerns over the visibility afforded to drivers exiting the appeal property, particularly the notable setback of the rear fence line observed between the appeal property and the neighbouring property of 28 Lawefield Avenue which has the potential to obscure drivers’ views. Nevertheless, the linear nature of Haigh Side Drive and the presence of a broad footpath and grass verge would ensure that vehicles exiting the appeal property can do so with a clear visibility in both directions. I am therefore satisfied that safe egress can be achieved from the appeal property onto the public highway. 9. That said, due to the design of the double gates, which open outwards towards the public highway, it means that vehicles wishing to access the appeal property would be required to wait at a sufficient distance to allow the gates to be opened. This could be achieved either by vehicles waiting on the public highway for the gates to be opened, or alternatively vehicles to remain in a stationary position on the driveway, no closer than 1.5m from the front of the gates to allow sufficient space for opening. 10. Given the relatively limited space, the latter scenario is the most likely to occur, with vehicles pulling into the driveway before opening the gates. In such instances the lack of driveway length will result in vehicles being stationary, both across the pedestrian footway but also projecting out into the public highway itself. Whilst I note the linear character of the road and its 20mph speed limit in this location, the presence of unanticipated stationary vehicles blocking the pedestrian footway and elements of the public highway would create a highway safety risk for pedestrians using the footpath and other road users. These risks are particularly exacerbated due to the positioning of the driveway and its relationship to the junction of Haigh Side Drive and Haighside. I note the appellant indicates that there have not been any recorded accidents in the vicinity of the appeal site due to the presence of rear gates to the appeal property. However, the lack of incidents is not sufficient justification to support the ongoing use of the gates for vehicular access if those arrangements pose a notable risk to highway safety. 11. The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of gated driveways within the vicinity of the appeal site, including properties on Haigh Side Drive and Low Shops Lane. However, I noted that many did not have the same material relationships with the public highway, particularly due to their proximity and interaction with road junctions. Moreover, as I have limited details of those schemes before me, I cannot be certain if they were permitted under a different development plan or not. Therefore. I have considered the scheme before me on its own planning merits. 12. I therefore conclude that the development would be contrary to Policies T2 and P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review Appeal Decision 6005800 3 2019) which states that new development should be located in accessible locations which are safe and secure for pedestrians, cyclists and people with impaired mobility and promotes good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function. The development is also not consistent with Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) which requires development to resolve detailed planning considerations such as access arrangements. Conclusion 13. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. P Hatch INSPECTOR