Appeal 3328565

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.

The appeal concerns a dwelling that fronts onto [address]. The proposal is to create a dropped kerb that would serve an existing hard surfaced area at the front to be used for car parking. Government policy in Manual for Streets (MFS) is that visibility splays of 2.4 by 43 metres should be provided where the speed limit is 30 miles per hour, as in this case. However, the highways consultee indicates that only about 14 metres could be achieved within the appeal site to each side, resulting in a significant potential shortfall. Achieving the necessary visibility could only be ensured by the Appellant having control of the adjacent land which is in separate ownership. Without this there can be no certainty that the necessary sightlines would be available and free of obstruction.

Moreover, I note that these dimensions and the applicability of the guidance in MFS are not disputed by the Appellant. In these circumstances there is a significant risk that drivers using the parking space at the appeal site would have their views of cars travelling along [address] unduly restricted by obstructions. Moreover, I saw at my site visit that if leaving the space and looking to the right, visibility would currently be unduly limited by a hedge at the neighbouring property.

As a result, when motorists exit the hardstanding to turn onto the carriageway there would be an undue risk of accidents occurring as a result of this manoeuvre. This is especially so as [address] is a C Class road and I saw at my site visit that it carries a relatively high volume of traffic that includes buses.

The parking space would only have a depth of 3.83 metres. This would be significantly short of the 5 metres that the highways consultee indicates is set out in the [name] (CPS). This would result in a fair likelihood of a car parked at the appeal site overhanging the footway, which to the front of the site is under 1.6 metres deep. This would give rise to an undue risk of pedestrians being forced to walk in the road in order to pass a vehicle parked at the site. Wheelchair users and those pushing a pram would be especially vulnerable in this situation. Pedestrians would therefore be in an unduly hazardous position with passing vehicles.

It is accepted that the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposal would be fairly modest. It is also the case that cars moving in and out of the space would tend to do so at fairly low speeds. However, neither of these matters would prevent the adverse effects I have described.

I saw at my site visit that the majority of nearby dwellings have off road parking and a dropped kerb. These tend to raise similar problems to those arising in this instance regarding parking space sizes and visibility available within the site. I saw vehicles parked at other properties overhanging the footway to such a degree that pedestrians would almost certainly be forced into the road.

Nevertheless, I have no evidence to show that the Council has granted planning permission for any of these. Even if it has, there is no information as to when this happened and under what policies and traffic conditions. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the Council’s decision making has been inconsistent. It is also legitimate for the Council to seek to raise the standard pf development. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that such obviously substandard parking facilities should be used to justify further similar provision.

The Appellant indicates that having looked at the accident record there is no record of any incidents concerning the use of accesses onto [address]. However, it is not clear over what time period this is the case and even if there have been no incidents, I am concerned that if the appeal were to succeed this would not necessarily remain the case. The ability of the Council to take enforcement action against vehicles overhanging the footway would not address the visibility concerns. In any event, this is not a sound reason to accept a development that would result in the adverse effects I have described.

The Appellant suggests that parking in the street is unsafe due to vehicles passing buses at the nearby stop. However, visibility when parked in the street would be likely to be significantly better than when leaving the appeal site, especially given the adjacent vegetation.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. There would be conflict with South Bucks District Local Plan (LP) 1999, Policy TR5, Buckinghamshire’s Local Transport Plan (LTP) 4 2016-2036, Policy 19 and Buckinghamshire County Council Highways Development Management Guidance 2018. Taken together and among other things, these are concerned with road safety, ensuring that new accesses do not compromise the safe use of roads and securing appropriate parking and visibility.

LP Policy TR7 is concerned with matters such as the amount and location of parking rather than its safety. The Appellant points out that the above policies and guidance are not specifically concerned with the size of parking spaces. Nevertheless, in my experience the proposed space is obviously deficient in its depth and the figure of 5m referred to is fairly common and reasonable. It is also contained in the CPS and in Policy 19 of the LTP it is indicated that this gives guidance on how parking should be provided.

There would also be conflict with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework because of the unacceptable impact on highway safety. It is concluded that there are no other considerations, including all other matters raised, that would justify accepting the development. Given the harm that would arise and conflict with the development plan, it is determined that the appeal fails. In reaching this decision I have had particular regard to the personal safety of the Appellant and her family.