# School House Barn, Circular Road, Seaview, Isle of Wight

- **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Cahalane
- **Authority:** Isle of Wight (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009573
- **Application reference:** 25/01463/RVC
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** New pedestrian gateway in historic stone wall onto Circular Road, replacing substandard High Street door, and s73 removal/variation of access conditions 4 and 6 on 2004 barn-conversion permission
- **Homes:** 2
- **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6
- **Development plan policies:** Isle of Wight Island Plan Core Strategy 2012 DM2, DM17, Seaview CA Appraisal 2007
- **Main issues:** highway safety
- **Tags:** highway-safety, dmrb-cd143-not-applicable, manual-for-streets, s73-variation, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, ndha

## Summary
A new pedestrian gate onto a narrow, low-speed Seaview street was allowed. It replaced an existing door opening directly onto the busier High Street, and access conditions on the 2004 barn-conversion permission were varied to match. The gate alone would not be "entirely safe", but swapping accesses was a "minor betterment", so there was no unacceptable impact on highway safety. The inspector gave the DMRB CD 143 visibility standard very little weight on a non-trunk road.

## Issues and findings
- **Which standard.** "the DMRB requirements typically apply to motorways and trunk roads … use of the DMRB could result in significant over-specification … I therefore give very little weight to CD143's recommended absolute minimum X distance of 1.5m. MfS however does not provide specific guidance regarding pedestrian access visibility requirements" (DL ¶8-9).
- **Gate alone.** The gate "would thus not achieve an entirely safe environment for all users … in particular children and those with restricted mobility … such highway safety risk to be low in terms of severity and probability". There is a minor DM2 conflict (DL ¶16).
- **Net effect.** "replacing the existing High Street access with the proposed gated access off Circular Road would provide a minor betterment to highway safety" (DL ¶21). "not amount to an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶22).
- **Accident record.** The absence of recorded collisions is not "a reliable indicator of highway safety" because only injury crashes are recorded (DL ¶23).

## Planning balance
Plan-led. A minor DM2 conflict was outweighed by DM17 compliance, and the scheme accords with the plan as a whole (DL ¶22, 37).

## What made the difference
The comparison with the existing access. The new gate was assessed as a net change, not in the abstract. Measured 85th-percentile speeds of about 15 mph also put the site well within Manual for Streets territory.

## Transferable points
- Inspectors treat DMRB CD 143 as over-specification on local roads and prefer MfS. Where MfS is silent, pedestrian-access safety is a matter of judgement on observed speeds and flows (DL ¶8-9).
- Absence of recorded injury collisions is not reliable evidence of safety (DL ¶23).
- Highway "unacceptable impact" is assessed on the net change against the existing access arrangement (DL ¶21-22).

## Policy findings
- **TR6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — "the residual highway safety risk would be minor, the proposed scheme would not amount to an unacceptable impact on highway safety. There is thus no conflict with the Framework" (DL 22)
- **TR4: pass.** code mapped by harvester — DMRB CD 143 1.5m X-distance given "very little weight" on non-trunk road; MfS/MfS2 silent on pedestrian access visibility so a matter of judgement (DL 8-9); 85th percentile 13-15.4mph on Circular Road (DL 11)
- **HE9: pass.** small loss of NDHA wall fabric; CA preserved; s72 cited (DL 26-29)
- **HE6: pass.** setting of Grade II Alton House Shirley Cottage unharmed; s66 cited (DL 30)

## Key facts
- Appeal A 6009569 (gateway, 25/01462/FUL) and Appeal B 6009573 (s73) decided together (DL 5)
- Earlier appeal APP/P2114/W/22/3294647 for a Circular Road doorway dismissed in 2022 (different layout) (DL 6)
- ATC surveys Feb 2023 and Aug 2024; High Street has several times the traffic and higher speeds (DL 11, 19-20)
- Parties not re-consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 7)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009573
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0874d78b-21b4-406b-a328-eff06f9feaab

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009573.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.