Conditions and connectivity: the Kirriemuir link road appeal.

The condition and the appeal

The scheme takes access from the east, along an upgraded Logie Road to Forfar Road. Part of that road was already built to serve phase one. The road would continue along the southern edge of the site and loop through both phases. A pedestrian route would continue west to Glamis Road, but the road itself would stop short (decision, paragraphs 4 and 5). The council's committee report records that a section of about 37 metres would remain unbuilt.

Condition 3(i) required the through road between Forfar Road and Glamis Road, with a three-metre footway along its length, to be provided before development commenced, in line with a 2016 permission for a similar link road (paragraph 3). The developer appealed against the condition.

Before turning to it, the reporter confirmed that the development itself accorded with the development plan, comprising NPF4, the Angus Local Development Plan 2016 and the Design and Placemaking Supplementary Guidance. The only issue was whether condition 3(i) met the six tests in Circular 4/1998 (paragraphs 1 and 6).

Necessity

The reporter accepted that the condition was relevant to planning, precise and enforceable (paragraph 8). The case turned on the remaining three tests.

On necessity, the circular asks whether permission would have had to be refused without the condition (paragraph 12). Several points led the reporter to conclude that it would not.

1. The allocation. The local development plan allocation for site K1 states that vehicular access is to be taken from Logie Road via Forfar Road. It does not require a vehicular link to Glamis Road (paragraph 12).
2. Capacity. The council's roads service confirmed that the Forfar Road junction could comfortably accommodate all the traffic from the development. The reporter observed a junction of a high standard, with good visibility and modest traffic (paragraph 13).
3. The alternative route. The council argued that, without the link, traffic heading for Glamis Road would use a 1.3 kilometre route via Morrison Street, and that the appellant had not shown Morrison Street could cope. The reporter noted that Forfar Road gives direct access to the town centre and the A90, that only a small number of trips from 39 homes would be likely to use the Glamis Road direction, and that the council had provided no evidence that the existing route could not accommodate them (paragraphs 10 and 14).
4. Permeability. The council relied on policy DS3 and the supplementary guidance, which seek connected, permeable layouts and discourage cul-de-sacs. The reporter found that the access road would form a loop through both phases rather than a dead end, so it was not a cul-de-sac, and that the westward footpath connection would meet the active travel requirements of the plan (paragraphs 11, 15 and 16).

Relevance and reasonableness

The council argued that only a short additional length of road was needed, that the link would meet a wider development plan objective, and that it would respond to concerns from the community council and objectors (paragraph 19). Several representations emphasised the benefit of the link for heavy goods vehicles serving nearby business and industrial sites (paragraph 25).

The reporter accepted that a link road might bring wider benefits. However, the circular requires a condition to be justified by the nature of the development or its effect on its surroundings. The traffic that would benefit most was not generated by these 39 homes. It was not appropriate to address wider issues through a condition on a residential permission, and the requirement was therefore neither relevant to the development nor reasonable (paragraphs 20 to 22 and 26).

The active travel connection

The reporter treated the pedestrian link differently. The allocation seeks improved active travel connections, and NPF4 policies 14 and 15 support well-connected development that offers sustainable travel choices and reduces car dependency. A three-metre connection from Logie Road to Glamis Road met the tests of the circular, and the reporter considered it should also cater for cyclists, linking with the active travel provision required on Glamis Road under condition 3(iii) (paragraphs 23 and 24).

The varied condition therefore requires the vehicular access from Forfar Road and a three-metre footway and cycleway through to Glamis Road before development begins. The reason given refers to connectivity, permeability and direct routes for walking, cycling and driving under policy DS3 (decision, revised condition 3(i)).

Points of interest and doubt

The decision is a clear example of the necessity test being applied to an access condition through the lens of the allocation. Where the plan has already specified how a site is to be accessed, a council seeking more must show why the development requires it. Here, the allocation pointed one way and the council's own roads service confirmed that the specified access was adequate.

A council might nonetheless argue that permeability is a design objective in its own right, not merely a response to traffic capacity, and that a through route can be justified on placemaking grounds even where capacity is not in issue. The reporter did engage with that argument, through the policy DS3 and cul-de-sac points, and found that a looped internal road with a through route for walking and cycling satisfied it. Whether a different layout, or a larger development, would justify a vehicular connection on placemaking grounds alone is not something this decision decides.

The treatment of the Morrison Street argument also merits attention. The council suggested that the appellant had not demonstrated the capacity of the alternative route. The reporter's response was that the council had not shown it lacked capacity, in the context of a small number of trips. On this reasoning, where a condition is said to be necessary, the party imposing it should be in a position to support that with evidence.

Practical points

• Read the allocation closely. The access arrangements in the allocation carried considerable weight. A condition that goes beyond them needs a development-specific justification.
• Separate the development's impacts from wider benefits. A link that would mainly serve existing business traffic is unlikely to be justified by a condition on a residential permission. Other mechanisms, such as the plan's infrastructure strategy or a planning obligation tested against Circular 3/2012, may be more appropriate.
• Evidence necessity. If a condition is said to be needed because an alternative route cannot cope, that should be demonstrated rather than asserted.
• Distinguish movement by mode. The reporter accepted the case for an active travel connection while rejecting the vehicular one. Conditions framed mode by mode are easier to justify than a single requirement covering everything.
• For applicants: an appeal against a condition need not be all or nothing. Here, the reporter varied the condition, and the developer must still provide the active travel connection, now specified to accommodate cyclists.