Appeal 3330728

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal site, [site address] , comprises a two-storey detached dwelling. It is one of a number of dwellings on a relatively new residential estate. The house currently enjoys, in addition to an attached garage off street parking for two cars. [address] is a private single carriageway estate road.

The appellant proposes a new vehicle crossover to access an area of existing hardstanding in front of the house for vehicle parking. The appellant states that the reason for requiring the new crossover is to deter people parking partially on the pavement, in front of her house, thereby obstructing pedestrians. I further understand that parked vehicles here make it difficult to exit the existing driveway. Furthermore, if there is also a vehicle parked on the opposite side of the road the road is narrowed so that large vehicles cannot get past, thereby causing some congestion.

The Council’s dimensions for a standard parking bay are given as 2.7 metres wide by 5.0 meters deep. However, the distance between the back of the pavement and the front wall of the house is only about 4.0 metres. Due to the proposed relationship of the cross over to the parking area vehicles are likely, despite the appellant’s suggestion to the contrary, to park at [address] and not parallel to it. Accordingly, because of the limited depth they are likely to hang out over the pavement. This as, identified by the Council is likely to the detriment of pedestrian safety.

While minded of the appellant’s justification for wanting a dropped kerb to deter people from parking on the pavement I consider that if a new dropped kerb were installed here as proposed one danger to pedestrian safety would simply be replaced with another.

The Council have raised a concern that a vehicle parking on the hardstanding would not have room to turn on site so as to leave in a forward gear. While this is correct, the estate has been designed and laid out such that most of the homeowners currently have to reverse into their parking space or out of it into the road. I do not consider therefore that one more vehicle reversing out onto the estate road would have a significantly detrimental effect on highway safety.

I am sympathetic to the appellant’s concerns relating to on street parking issues. Nevertheless, I concluded in respect of the main issue that while another vehicle reversing out on to the road would not be necessarily detrimental to highway safety, vehicles overhanging to pavement would be. To allow the proposal would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policy TRA7 of the Ashford Local Plan ([name] 2019), the National Planning Policy Framework and the [name] and Design Guidance SPD 2010, as they relate to, along with other things, highway safety and the need to provide for pedestrians first.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.