Appeal 3305963

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling situated along [address], which in this area is a busy dual-carriageway.

The appeal property sits back from the dual-carriageway behind a wide pavement, which is split into an on-pavement parking area, closest to the road, and a pavement for pedestrian movement. There is a garden area between the front elevation of Number 833 and the public pavement.

During my site visit, I observed there to be a number of examples of where the front gardens of dwellings along [address], close to the appeal property, have been converted into car parking areas. This results in a confusing situation – whereby on-pavement parking is still in place along the wide pavement – in some circumstances, even in front of those areas where car parking areas have been created in front of dwellings.

As a consequence of this, it is not clear for all users of the highway as to whether cars may be seeking to exit [address] in order to park alongside it, to park along the pavement, or seek to turn directly into or out of a driveway. Furthermore, I noted during my site visit that the situation is equally confusing for pedestrians – such that cars might seek to park between the pedestrian area and the road; or may seek to manoeuvre across the pavement in order to access or exit from a driveway. This creates a hazardous and uncertain environment for pedestrian, as well as for other road users and I find that the proposal to replace the appeal property’s front garden with a parking area would serve to exacerbate what is already a confusing situation.

The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the need for cars to manoeuvre across the pavement, to or from the appeal property, in reverse gear, in order to enter or exit the highway in forward gear. This would, I find, place pedestrians at risk whilst using a pavement which ought to provide for their safe movement.

Further to the above, I consider that the presence of cars parked in the zoned parking areas alongside [address] would restrict visibility from a vehicle seeking to manoeuvre over the pavement and enter the road from the appeal property. Further, a vehicle reversing onto or away from the road would, I find, run the risk of detriment to the flow of traffic along [address].

In addition to all of the above, I am also mindful of Transport for London’s objection to the proposal, which states that the proposed hard surface area could provide for two car parking spaces – thus compounding the issues identified. 10.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would result in conflicting movements with pedestrians and/or vehicles in a busy location. Given this, I find that the proposal would result in harm to highway safety contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy T6 and to Local Plan1 Policies LP22 and LP23, which together amongst other things, seek to ensure safe and secure access.