An access can fall short of a visibility guideline without necessarily being unsafe. That distinction mattered in an appeal at Moat Farm, Thurston. It is a useful decision to revisit when a rural site appears to be ruled out by a number on a drawing.
What the Inspector decided
The proposal was to convert a barn into two homes under Class Q at Barrells Road, Great Green, Thurston. Inspector G Sylvester dismissed appeal APP/W3520/W/25/3361001 on 1 August 2025 because of potential noise and disturbance from neighbouring agricultural activity. Highway safety was a separate main issue.
On highways, the Inspector considered the existing access, the modest residential movements, very low traffic levels and low vehicle speeds. Although the access might not meet the highway authority’s visibility guidance, the potential for conflict was very low. The Inspector found no unacceptable highway safety harm. The detailed reasoning is at paragraphs 17 to 24 of the decision.
What we take from it
The useful lesson is about the quality of the assessment. A visibility measurement tells part of the story. It should be considered alongside how the road operates and how the proposed use changes the demands on the access.
For a landowner, this means a shortfall deserves proper investigation before it is treated as fatal. For a design team, it means the response needs to explain the specific risk and the evidence behind the conclusion. Simply pointing to a similar access nearby does little to establish what is acceptable at this one.
Build the evidence around the actual site
Our starting point would be a measured access drawing, a reliable understanding of traffic speeds and an explanation of the proposed activity. We would also check who controls the land needed to keep sightlines clear. These are practical steps we would recommend, rather than a checklist imposed by this decision.
The comparison with the existing use needs care. An agricultural access can serve quite different vehicles, at different times, from a residential entrance. The assessment should describe those differences rather than assume that an existing opening settles the matter.
If the access needs improvement, identify a deliverable solution. A drawing is most useful when its sightlines, boundary treatment and maintenance assumptions can all be explained.
Keep the outcome in perspective
This was a decision on its own facts, under the rules and policy considered at the time. It does not establish a general right to use substandard visibility or guarantee the outcome for another barn conversion.
It is also a reminder to keep the whole planning case in view. Resolving transport concerns may remove one obstacle while another remains. A sensible feasibility review considers the issues together, before substantial design work and fees are committed.
Sources and further reading
- Planning Inspectorate decision APP/W3520/W/25/3361001, 1 August 2025Highways findings at paragraphs 17 to 24; dismissal on living conditions at paragraph 25.
For a live proposal, see our access and visibility checks and highways objection review. The findings in this appeal do not establish that a different access is acceptable.
Sources checked 18 October 2026. The practical recommendations above are Ripple’s interpretation.