Appeal 3319637

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner above from the Council’s decision notice as it is more concise than that on the application form.

The main issue is the effect on pedestrian and highway safety.

The appeal relates to the installation of a dropped kerb on a classified road, to allow the formation of a parking area to the front of the appellant’s dwelling.

Given that the front garden of the appeal site is small, it is unable to accommodate a turning facility to allow a vehicle to enter and leave in a forward motion via the proposed dropped kerb. The proposal would therefore introduce the reverse manoeuvring of vehicles onto this classified road within a busy commercial area.

The appellant has indicated that visibility splays could be secured in both directions. However, on my site visit I observed that these were significantly obstructed by parked vehicles. Consequently, there would be limited visibility when pulling out of the site in the vicinity of parked cars, particularly in a reverse motion. Whilst the number of vehicle movements associated with the scheme would be limited, the proposal would still constitute a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers and would therefore fail to safeguard pedestrian and highway safety.

I recognise that other properties on [address] benefit from vehicle accesses without turning facilities. However, the appeal site sits between two commercial properties in the centre of the village, where there is a concentration of vehicle and pedestrian activity and on-street parking. The properties which include such arrangements are generally located further away from the busy commercial area or include parking restrictions on the highway adjacent to them.

The appellant has submitted examples of similar proposals for vehicular accesses to dwellings in the wider area for which the Council has granted planning consent. [name] only have limited information before me in respect of those developments, it appears that they vary from the appeal site as they are located in a residential area, rather than a village centre. In any event, each proposal must be considered on its own merits.

The Council’s reason for refusal states that the appellant’s garden is too small to accommodate an adequate size parking space. Policy PSP16 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (PSP) recommends that parking spaces within a residential curtilage should be a minimum of 5.5 metres in depth. It is unclear from the drawings submitted as part of the planning application whether this could be achieved. However, the appellant has submitted information as part of the appeal to demonstrate that this could be provided within the site. This would therefore meet the Council’s policy requirement in this respect. Nonetheless, this does not outweigh my concerns that, overall, the formation of a vehicular access would have an unacceptable impact upon pedestrian and highway safety.

In conclusion, for the reasons described, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to pedestrian and highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 111 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy PSP11 of the PSP and Policy CS8 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] 2006-2027 (2013). Taken together, these seek to ensure that proposals do not compromise pedestrian or highway safety.

I have considered several matters which the applicant has raised in support of the proposal. The off-street parking is required to facilitate the charging of an electric vehicle. I recognise the benefits that this would bring in terms of sustainability and preventing any potential hazard from cables on the footway if a vehicle were charging on the highway.

I note that the accident record for [address] is low, with only one collision having been recorded in recent years, involving vehicles. I also recognise that the proposal would discourage parking at the side of an A-road. Whilst it would remove the need for the appellant to park on the highway, given that on-street parking would be lost if the dropped kerb were constructed, this would be of limited benefit. None of these matters would be significant enough to overcome or outweigh my conclusions on the main issue.

The appeal is dismissed.