Appeal 3283100

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, for the formation of dropped kerbs to frontage of both houses at 81 and [address], Ripley, Derbyshire, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2021/0476, validated on 30 April 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

During the course of the application, the appellant provided additional drawings, in response to a request from the Highway Authority. These are [name]: 1 Existing Site Plan; [name]: 2 Proposed Site Plan; [name]: 2A Proposed Site Plan; and [name]: 3 [name]. Drawing 2A showed a reduced area of dropped kerb to facilitate parking parallel to the highway. It is clear from the [name] that this drawing did not form the basis of the Council’s decision and I do not need to consider it further.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Amber Valley Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. 1 Section 13 (Declaration) of the application for planning permission was neither signed nor dated 2 Description of the development was set out in various terms – I have amended these for clarity

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

Numbers 63 to 81 (odd numbers inclusive) [address] comprise two rows of houses with a more or less common set back from the highway3. Numbers 63, 65, 69 and 75 have dropped kerbs and forecourt parking. Planning permission has also been granted for similar works at no. 67. Other than the latter, I have no details of the related planning history4.

Nonetheless, none of the existing parking spaces appear to have the requisite depth of 5.5 metres; and visibility splays, in the manner sought for the appeal proposal, are not readily evident. Indeed no. 63 is flanked by the gable wall of no. 61 which extends forward to the rear edge of the footway.

In common with those properties which have off-street parking, the appeal proposal would be capable of providing space for small or medium sized vehicles to park without partially overhanging the footway. Additionally, the visibility available to an emerging driver would not be markedly less. That said, it has to be accepted that the current arrangements for off-street parking, and the presence of kerbside parking, present potential hazards to both pedestrians and passing vehicles.

Taking these drawbacks in context, [address] was seen to have a light and intermittent traffic flow. It is narrow with kerbside parking along its western side and daytime no waiting restrictions on the opposite side. This directs the predominant free flow away from the houses. In addition, this section of the street is generally straight, and the ad hoc arrangement of parking provides a clear signal to both pedestrians and drivers of possible dangers.

It is also relevant to note that the removal of kerbside parking along the frontage of 79 and 81 would offer better visibility of vehicles approaching from the direction of [address] for drivers leaving the access that serves the rear of 81 and 91 Pentrich Road5.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to the recent approval of dropped kerbs at [address]. Whilst each case has to be assessed on its site specific circumstances, consistency in decision making is nonetheless important. It is notable that the Council has only sought to provide some clarity of its concerns in its rebuttal of the application for costs.

In this regard, reference is made to the absence of physical boundary wall issues between 63 – [address]. However, I noted at my site visit that no. 67 is flanked by boundary fences on both sides. It is not stated whether either of these is to be removed/lowered as part of the approved scheme.

Moreover, any requirement for a visibility splay ignores the obstructing effect of a vehicle standing on the adjacent forecourt(s) and does not explain the apparent deficiency in the depth of the bay. It should also be noted that the 3 Visual inspection suggests some narrowing towards 79 and 81 4 The Council has not alleged that any of these are unauthorised 5 The Officer Report acknowledges that ‘The loss of such parking would evidently improve the use of the road for pedestrians and vehicles ......’. visibility splay sought would, in any event, have a very limited benefit for a driver of a vehicle that has parked in a forward facing direction. In this regard, it is likely that manoeuvring on to the highway would begin before the visibility splay had been ‘engaged’.

Although the Council alleges conflict with Policy TP16, which requires ‘satisfactory access ...... to the transport network ......’, and its consistency with paragraph 110 b) of the Framework7, paragraph 111 of the Framework indicates that ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety ......’.

In my opinion, when considered in the round, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the material circumstances identified would outweigh conflict with recommended standards and the

I have noted the concerns of a neighbouring resident that the proposal would reduce the availability of on-street parking opportunities for those who do not have exclusive parking. However, this does not provide a compelling basis to dismiss the appeal.

Having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.