Appeal 3275082

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the provision of kerbside parking and the safety of highway users.

The appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling located within a road of similar properties. It sits next to No. [address] and the two are separated by a shared access servicing the rear of these properties. An existing dropped kerb is located directly in front of this shared access and appears to be used by both properties.

The forecourt of the appeal property is hard surfaced and fully open to the pavement, with a low pillar at each end. The width and depth of the forecourt is sufficient to park one car, but it is not large enough to accommodate a turning facility to enable a vehicle to enter and leave the parking space in a forward gear, as recommended by the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance titled ‘[name] (SPG).

As a result, vehicles would either reverse over the proposed crossover into the road from the forecourt or reverse off the road and over the proposed crossover into the forecourt. Whilst visibility from the forecourt itself along the pavement is reasonable, the crossover would be adjacent to kerbside parking spaces and visibility along the highway would be very restricted when these spaces are occupied. At such times, either manoeuvre would pose risk to users of the www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate highway. That said, as the forecourt of the appeal property appears to be served by the existing crossover I have referred to, the proposal would not actually lead to additional vehicles reversing into or out of the highway.

Notwithstanding this, the proposed crossover would be 3.5 metres wide. This would be significantly wider than the 2.4 metre maximum width recommended by the SPG. Furthermore, as explained, the proposed crossover would sit immediately adjacent to the existing vehicle crossover which measures 4.8 metres according to the Appellant’s submitted plan. The result would be a combined crossover of some 8.3 metres which would be a lot wider than the maximum width of 4.8 metres recommended by the SPG for a shared crossover ‘in the interests of retaining on street parking and pedestrian safety’.

Kerbside parking is restricted on the northern side of this part of [address]. As a consequence, I saw that kerbside parking is at a premium on the side where the appeal property sits. The introduction of the crossover would enlarge the existing crossover by a significant amount and would result in the loss of a kerbside parking space. The SPG explicitly seeks to avoid this. The effect could only lead to greater disruption to the free flow of traffic along [address] at times of peak demand for parking as drivers seek out one of a reduced number of kerbside spaces. The provision of the crossover would not compensate for the loss of a kerbside space because the off-street car parking space is already in use and is accessed by the existing crossover.

In light of the above factors, I conclude that when considered both individually and alongside the existing crossover at No. [address], the proposed crossover would be excessively wide and would result in the loss of kerbside parking in an area of high demand. As a result, the proposal would be contrary to the sound design guidance outlined within the SPG and also policy 1.1 of the Council’s adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy, which seeks to promote safe transport networks.

I am mindful of the presence of other wide crossovers within the immediate area. However, I am not aware of the precise planning circumstances relating to them. Moreover, I have considered the proposal before me on its individual merits, taking into account the most up to date design guidance and planning policies.

In light of the above factors, the appeal does not succeed.