Visibility between road users on a narrow lane: the Charlton Horethorne appeal.

The appeal

New highway information was submitted with the appeal, including drawings of the access visibility splays, a proposed footway on Harvest Lane, a technical note and a road safety audit. The inspector accepted these, finding no unfairness as the council and interested parties had been able to comment (decision, paragraphs 5 and 6). The council had received further information and did not contest the appeal (paragraph 8). The main issues remaining were character and highway safety (paragraph 13).

Harvest Lane and the proposed works

For most of its length Harvest Lane is too narrow for two vehicles to pass. Its banks give little meaningful verge, there is no footway, and it is used by dog walkers and horse riders (paragraph 26). The development was forecast to generate about 25 two-way vehicle movements in the morning peak, which the inspector considered a significant increase on a lane carrying little traffic (paragraph 28).

The lane fronting the site would be widened, but the south-eastern section linking the site to the village could not be. Three passing places were proposed instead, together with pedestrian refuges at those places, a one-metre virtual footway and a traffic order to reduce the speed limit (paragraphs 29 and 30). The inspector noted the drawings relied on land at the front of existing properties said to be in the highway authority's ownership, but found no confirmation of that (paragraph 30).

Curves, passing places and visibility

The appellant's technical note relied on research that passing places on rural roads with two-way flows of up to 300 vehicles can be acceptable when spaced 60 metres apart. The inspector found the proposed passing places did not appear to be that distance apart, and that site-specific factors mattered (paragraph 31).

The most significant of those factors was the alignment. Although the drawings suggested Harvest Lane was very straight, the inspector saw curves on the south-eastern section. The highway authority considered them gentle; the inspector found them significant enough to "limit the intervisibility between road users travelling in different directions" (paragraph 31). With single-vehicle passing places and around 12 vehicles leaving and 14 approaching the site in the peak hour, the inspector considered it highly likely that the lane would become regularly congested and that vehicles would need to reverse when passing places were occupied (paragraphs 32 and 33).

The inspector was not satisfied that an unlit one-metre virtual path, or passing places shared with vehicles that could include HGVs, would offer pedestrians a safe refuge, even with a lower speed limit and vegetation cut back (paragraph 34). The highway conditions would become significantly less safe for all users, contrary to Somerset Local Plan policy TA5 (paragraphs 38 and 42). Under policy TR6 of the Framework, proposals should be refused where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety (paragraph 60).

The evidence the inspector set aside

Several points in the appellant's favour were considered and found not to alter the conclusion. Traffic modelling showing delays of only a few seconds did not account for non-motorised users, and assumed only a couple of HGV movements when Class E would allow a broad range of uses (paragraph 35). The very low number of recorded injury collisions in the village reflected existing conditions, which the scheme would change (paragraph 39). The highway authority did not appear to contest the appeal, but the inspector reached an independent judgement on safety (paragraph 38). The access splays, passing places, speed limit order and other works were in the legal agreement, but would not make the development acceptable (paragraph 41).

The inspector acknowledged that unlit verges and sub-optimal carriageways are not uncommon in rural settings, but said this "should not be used as an excuse to accept unsafe highways conditions" (paragraph 38).

Points of interest and doubt

The decision is a reminder that an uncontested appeal is still decided on its merits. The council's position, and the highway authority's view of the curves, did not bind the inspector, who formed a different view from what was seen on site.

There is a tension with decisions such as Rose Farm, where an inspector held that a sub-optimal road is not of itself a reason for refusal. The two can be reconciled on their facts. At Rose Farm the access was designed to observed speeds and the footway could accommodate the additional pedestrians. At Charlton Horethorne the inspector found that the development would change conditions on a single-track section where vehicles and pedestrians would meet. That is our reading of the two decisions rather than a comparison either inspector made.

A forward visibility assessment along the lane, plotted from a topographical survey rather than a plan that showed the lane as straight, might have narrowed the dispute. It would be speculative to say whether it would have changed the outcome. Highway safety was not the only reason for dismissal: the inspector also found significant harm to character, and that the substantial benefits of 31 homes, including 35% affordable housing where the housing land supply stood at just over two years, were substantially outweighed (paragraphs 25, 50, 54, 55 and 61).

Practical points

• Assess the route as well as the access. On a single-track lane, forward visibility between opposing vehicles and between drivers and pedestrians can matter more than the splay.
• Plot visibility from survey data. An inspector's site visit will reveal curves that a plan does not show.
• Check passing place spacing and intervisibility against the guidance relied on, using the forecast peak flows in each direction.
• Test HGV assumptions against the full range of uses that the permission would allow.
• Confirm land ownership for passing places and widening, and secure the measures in the legal agreement.
• Do not rely on an uncontested appeal. The appellant still needs evidence that answers the issues an inspector may raise.