Creation of vehicular access

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 August 2026 by J Somers BSocSci (Planning) MA (HEC) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Decision date: 24 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010008 72 Southwold Road, Wrentham, Suffolk NR34 7JF • 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 Michaela Fisher against the decision of East Suffolk Council. • The application reference is DC/25/3550/FUL. • The development proposed is described as the ‘creation of vehicular access.’ Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the creation of a vehicular access, at 72 Southwold Road, Wrentham, Suffolk NR34 7JF in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: DC/25/3550/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The approved scheme shall take place no later than three (3) years from the date of this decision; 2) The approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with approved plans: • ‘Proposed Vehicular Access Site Plan,’ Drawing No.PA-01 Rev A’ Dated 12 May 2026 3) The new access shall be laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with Suffolk County Council Preliminary Drawing No. DM 000 03 with an entrance width of 3 metres. Thereafter it shall be retained in its approved form. 4) Before the access is first used, visibility splays shall be provided as shown on the ‘Proposed Vehicular Access Site Plan,’ Drawing No.PA-01 Rev A’ Dated 12 May 2026, and thereafter retained in the specified form. 5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and reenacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction to visibility shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow over 0.6 metres high within the areas of the visibility splays. 6) Prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied, the new access onto the highway shall be properly surfaced with abound material for a minimum distance of 5 metres measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway. Appeal Decision: 6010008 2 Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this concisely details the elements requiring planning consent. 3. During the appeal process, the Appellant has included a revised plan1 in order to accompany their Statement of Case (SoC) and corrects previous errors provided as part of the planning application concerning the distance of the property boundary to the road edge. The revised plan does not change the nature of the proposal and when judging this information in accordance with the ‘Wheatcroft principles2’, I see no prejudice towards either party in accepting this revised plan and will base my decision upon it. Given that this plan also incorporates visibility splays and information from the other plans previously submitted, I will base my decision upon this plan. 4. I note that the appeal documents reference the National Planning Policy Framework 2025 (the Framework). Since the submission of the appeal, the 2025 version of the Framework has been superseded by the 2026 version which was published on the 17 August 2026. Whilst the structure and format of the Framework have changed, the wording of the relevant policies of the new Framework in relation to this appeal remain largely unchanged and therefore did not require to be reassessed by either party in relation to this appeal. As such I have considered the appeal on this basis and refer only to the updated 2026 Framework within my decision. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety. Reasons 6. The appeal site is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings that fronts Southwold Road. Dwellings along Southwold Road have large front gardens with dwellings set back from the road. Many of the dwellings contain a vehicular access to the front gardens with some dwellings having hardscaped or cleared front gardens for vehicular parking. I appreciate that the road conditions I experienced on my site visit was only a snapshot of the road at this particular time, however I have also considered the evidence submitted by both main parties, and in light of this, I am satisfied that what I saw represents typical conditions. 7. Southwold Road is a single carriageway in each direction and is a classified ‘B’ road which provides a pedestrian and vehicular route between the High Street of Wrentham and the settlement of Southwold further south. Whilst carrying more vehicles and higher weight classes of vehicles than the surrounding residential streets and cul-de-sacs, Southwold Road has a low speed limit of 30 miles per hour. I also acknowledge that the Council’s Highway team view that cars travel along this road at higher speeds than the posted speed limit, although I did not experience this on my site visit. The road at the appeal site is relatively straight and contains predominantly unrestricted parking on both sides and sections further along with laybys which allow residential parking. The road contains street lighting and relatively narrow pedestrian footpaths adjacent to each side of the road. 1 ‘Proposed Vehicular Access Site Plan,’ Drawing No.PA-01 Rev A’ Dated 12 May 2026 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37] Appeal Decision: 6010008 3 8. In front of the appeal site is unrestricted on-street parking, where whilst I didn’t experience any cars parked in front of the Appeal Site, there is an ability to do so. Southwold Road appeared relatively free-flowing, with main parking on the roads confined to the layby areas. At the time of my visit, in the morning, the footpaths on both sides contained pedestrians further towards Wrentham High Street, but not in front of the Appeal Site. Based upon what I saw on my site visit I deduce that Southwold Road operates satisfactorily without any significant safety issues. Whilst I have not been presented with any accident data, the absence of formal accident data does not in itself mean that accidents have not occurred, near misses, or indeed that a carriageway is ‘safe.’ 9. In undertaking development, the Waveney Local Plan (LP) Policy WLP8.29 is a design-led policy that contains a number of considerations around design with relevant details around transport regarding considerations of permeable and legible developments which are easily accessed and used by all. Additionally, Policy TR6 Paragraph 4 of the Framework seeks that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be severe adverse impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios. 10. The proposed access and parking area would allow visibility for users of the proposed access to exit, with the space at the front of the property large enough for vehicles to turn around and exit in a forward direction. The corrections made to the plans result in an appropriate distance between the road edge and the dwelling so that visibility splays are no longer obstructed by neighbouring property which appeared to be evident in existing plans. Whilst I appreciate that vehicles could still park along the road edge and obstruct the visibility splays, the use of the front garden area for parking would in this instance remove vehicles from the road edge, particularly as originally, this dwelling was one of the only dwellings on the street not to have a vehicular access point. This would also have benefits for neighbouring properties as vehicles parked in front of the appeal site would obstruct visibility splays of the neighbouring properties. 11. Consequently, and in conclusion of this matter, the proposal would not cause severe highway safety issues and with compliance to conditions, would allow adequate safety for all road users. Consequently, the proposal would be compliant with LP Policy WLP8.29 and TR6 Paragraph 4 of the Framework as defined previously. Conclusion and conditions 12. Taking the above into account, I conclude that the appeal be allowed in accordance with the conditions as specified within this letter. I refer to the suggested conditions provided by the Council and I have assessed these against the test of conditions in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Conditions 1 and 2 are standard conditions which set the standard time limit and approved plans which are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have amended the plans list to the accepted amended plan as discussed. Conditions 3 and 4 relate to the construction of the access which is required to conform to the standards of construction of dropped kerbs. Condition 5 seeks that no obstructions are erected on the appeal site that could restrict visibility splays which is necessary to ensure safe use of the access. Condition 6 seeks that the first 5 metres of the Appeal Decision: 6010008 4 access is adequately sealed to avoid gravel entering the road which can cause detriment to road safety. J Somers INSPECTOR