Appeal 3323524

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the free flow of traffic and highway safety.

No. [site address] is a two storey end of terrace dwelling located next to a shared pathway and in a residential area. It is part of a row of 8 dwellings which have in the main, pleasant front gardens with lawns and shrubs. None of these dwellings have vehicular access via a crossover from [address]. [address] is a classified principal road.

The front garden of the appeal building is separated from [address] by a footway and grass verge, which includes a small street tree. On-street parking is available in front of the appeal site and there is access to garaging at the rear of the row of dwellings. There is a pedestrian crossing for [address] near [address] which provides access to [name].

The criteria for new vehicular crossings to provide access to parking space are set out in the Council’s Revised Technical Standards for [name]. The proposed development conflicts with the requirements of these standards. Creating the new access would result in the loss of a street tree, however that is an immature specimen which could be replaced nearby. More importantly, there would be no manoeuvring space for vehicles using the new parking spaces in the front garden of 112. This means that drivers would either have to reverse in or out of the spaces, and thereby likely to create a hazard on [address] for passing vehicles, including buses and cyclists. The proposal would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic on [address] because of the resultant vehicle turning movements and would potentially result in a danger to pedestrians using the footway as vehicles reversed in or out of the parking spaces. The proposed crossover would also exceed the maximum width of 4.8 metres stated in the Council’s standards.

I note that, although the proposal is for a single new crossover, it would be contrary to Transport for London’s general policy of resisting all but the most exceptional access proposals affecting classified roads, such as [address]. That is to prevent danger on the highway network, including through the potential cumulative adverse impact of many additional crossings. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that any exceptional circumstances exist for the crossing and there appears to be the opportunity for vehicular access to the rear of the property.

I find that the proposed vehicular crossing and its use by vehicles would have a significant adverse effect of on the free flow of traffic and highway safety. It would therefore fail to comply with policy DMD46 of the Enfield Development Management Document which indicates that permission for a new access onto ‘A’ and other classified roads will not normally be permitted. It would conflict with [name] policies CP24, CP25 and CP30 and objectives in the National Planning Policy Framework regarding the need for safety of the road network, including for cyclists and pedestrians.

I have taken all other matters raised into account. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.