Appeal 3323798

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal property is on a corner plot, at the junction of [address] and [name] with a small front garden adjoining both. [address] is busy and whilst my site visit represents a snapshot in time, this broadly reflects the conditions described by the Council. The proposal would facilitate the use of the front garden as a parking space, with a dropped kerb providing vehicular access onto [address]. It would result in vehicles passing over the footway.

I have not been provided with compelling evidence to demonstrate that the size and shape of the proposed parking area would permit the average modern vehicle from entering and exiting the site in forward gear. Reversing into the site would lead to vehicles slowing, stopping, and turning off the busy road in reverse. This would unacceptably impede the free flow of traffic. In addition, reversing out of the site into the road, a situation where the driver’s visibility would be limited, would be hazardous to both pedestrians and other road users.

I have not been shown details of visibility splays which may indicate that sufficient sightlines could be achieved when leaving the site in forward gear. Nor have I been presented with records indicating a lack of incidents involving vehicular movements within the area. Whilst vehicle speeds and movements to and from the appeal site via the proposed access would likely be commensurate with its residential nature, the above circumstances would still unacceptably increase the likelihood of conflict with pedestrians and motorists.

The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In this regard, it would conflict with Policies 32 and 34 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 which broadly require new developments to, amongst other things, ensure road safety is not significantly adversely affected.

There is an extant planning permission1 for the addition of an annexe to a detached garage in the rear garden. The latter of which already has vehicular access. [name] does not have on street parking restrictions. In addition, existing access and off street parking would seem to already provide for such to respond to the needs of both the dwelling and the annexe. It also strikes me that it could accommodate the installation of an electrical vehicle charging point. The position of the garage and its proximity to the back edge of the highway would still no doubt involve a reversing manoeuvre to get on and/or off the property, but this would be onto a minor secondary road in the shape of [name]. It is also an existing situation over which the consideration of this scheme has no specific control.

I have not been made aware of the full circumstances of other examples of similar parking arrangements along [address]. It is unclear whether they benefit from express planning permission. In any event, their presence does not justify the harm that would arise as it has been identified.

I note the appellant’s concerns regarding a lack of communication from the Council. However, this is a procedural matter which does not have a bearing on the outcome of the appeal with specific regard to the merits of the proposed development.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight which would indicate to the contrary. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.