Appeal 3317321

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed vehicular access on highway safety.

I saw on my visit that No. [site address] is one of a terrace of four dwellings on the west side of [address] close to the junction with [address]. The appeal scheme includes a dropped kerb to facilitate on-site parking at No. 255 and this is shown on submitted [name]. 06 ‘Proposed Kerb Plan’ as having a width of 5.5m.

This drawing also shows that to all intents and purposes this is also the width of the front garden where the parking would take place. This would be insufficient for a vehicle to turn on the site and therefore the use of the proposed parking area would inevitably result in the comings and goings involving reversing either into or out of the front garden.

No. 255 is separated from a light controlled pedestrian crossing to the north by only one house, as it is from the exit arm of [address] to the south. Both factors add to the potential hazard over and above the reasons for the Highway Authority’s standard objection in its [name] policy for new accesses.

The dropped kerb’s position on pedestrian crossing markings would mean that a vehicle reversing into or out of No. 255 would distract and obstruct drivers of passing vehicles from pedestrians on the crossing or preparing to cross it. The proximity to [address] would also mean that vehicle drivers emerging from that road (and therefore concentrating on the traffic approaching from the south before accelerating to join [address]) would also encounter distraction and obstruction from use of the proposed access. In both cases I consider that there would be a harmful effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic.

I acknowledge that there are other vehicular accesses adjacent and/or close-by on this side of the road. However, I have not been advised whether or not these are authorised and for how long they have been established. And in some cases they are are to houses with sufficient turning space to enable vehicles to exit in a forward gear. Moreover, few if any have the same potential hazards as No. 255, given its position with equal distance from both a pedestrian crossing and a side road junction.

I recognise that the absence of an on-site parking space is a significant inconvenience for the appellant and sympathise with this, but the absence of a crossover would have been apparent before taking occupation of the property.

On balance therefore and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. This would conflict with paragraph l of Policy DM10 in [name] 2012 and with paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021. The Notice of Refusal also refers to the former’s Policy DM8, but as the grounds of appeal point out, this is only of very limited relevance.

For the reasons explained above, I dismiss the appeal.