Appeal 3281059

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development proposed is taken from the application form. The description of the proposed development on the Council’s decision notice is described as “Widening of existing vehicular access.”

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal property is a bay-fronted, two storey end of terrace dwelling located within in a predominantly residential area close to [address]’s junctions with [address], [address] and [address]. The dwelling has an attached single storey garage to the side, which adjoins a similar garage to the side of No [address].

The area is characterised by the presence of similar, bay-fronted, two storey terraced housing facing [address], a busy principal road. Dwellings are set back from the wide pavements of [address] behind short front garden areas.

Close to and on the same side of the road as the appeal property, several of these front garden areas have been converted into front parking areas, with direct access over the pavement and onto the road via dropped kerbs. However, during my site visit I observed that elsewhere along [address] nearby to the appeal property, many front garden areas have been retained.

The whole of the front of the appeal property is paved and there is a dropped kerb, providing a single point of access to [address].

The presence of the attached garage to the side of the property results in its frontage being wider of most other dwellings along [address], albeit its immediate neighbour, No 47, has a similarly wide frontage. Consequently, whilst the width of the access across the pavement and onto [address] via the dropped kerb only provides for a single vehicle, there is scope to park more than one vehicle at the front of the appeal property.

It is proposed to widen the access from the appeal property directly onto [address]. This would significantly increase the scope for vehicles to drive across the pavement between the front of the appeal property and [address]. The appeal property is located adjacent to a busy road, close to three junctions, most notably that with [address], just a few houses away. 10.During the time of my site visit, I observed [address] to be busy and noted numerous vehicles entering and leaving [address]; and leaving [address] and [address], both of which are one-way streets. I also noted numerous pedestrians walking along [address] and attempting to cross the area’s roads. The proposed development would provide increased scope for vehicles to enter and exit the property onto and from [address], across the pavement, potentially at the same time. 11.Vehicles would need to do this across a pavement nearby to three road junctions. It was clear to me during my site visit that [address] in this vicinity comprises a relatively busy pedestrian and vehicle thoroughfare as pedestrians seek to reach the wider area’s services amenities and road users seek to progress their journey along [address] or to turn at nearby junctions. 12.Consequently, I find that any increase in the number of vehicles manoeuvring or crossing over the pavement outside the appeal property, whether in forwards or reverse gear, and entering onto or exiting from [address], would result in an unacceptable increase in risk to the safety of pedestrians and other road users in this area. 13.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policies T4 and T6; to Core Strategy1 Policies CP24 and CP25, and to DMD2 Policy DMD46, which together amongst other things, requires development to take account of highway safety.