Appeal 3339121

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevant implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on pedestrian and highway safety.

The Council advises that Kent County Council Highways Safety Guidelines ([name]: Interim Guidance Note 3 – [name] (IGN3)) sets out standards for off street parking. The parking area should be at least 4.8m long between the back of the pavement or property boundary and the front of the building. Alternatively, at least 6m length is required where a parking area is in front of a garage or door where adequate means of escape needs to be provided, like a front or back door. To my mind this sets out appropriate criteria to ensure parking meets acceptable highway safety standards and that driveways have enough room for users to park a vehicle completely on the property.

The Council have calculated the length of the parking space to be approximately 4.79m between the back of the pavement and the front building line of the dwelling, although I note the calculation provided by the appellant indicates this to be approximately 4.88m. The dwelling hosts a projecting entrance porch, therefore, the latter requirement of 6m of the above criteria should be applied. Taking into consideration both the Council’s and appellant’s measurement calculations the length of the parking space would not meet the required standard to ensure a safe means of escape from the dwelling’s entrance porch front door.

To allow for access to and from the entrance porch a vehicle parked within the frontage would be extremely likely to overhang the pedestrian highway thus creating an obstacle for passing pedestrians. Consequently, the proposal would create a hazard for pedestrians using the public footway. The appellant contends that any encroachment of the pedestrian highway would be subject to potential enforcement action under separate highway legislation. However, it would not be appropriate to rely on other legislation beyond the scope of the planning system to make an unacceptable development acceptable.

Further to the above, the plan that supports the proposal does not illustrate that a vehicle would be able to turn within the parking area. As such, a vehicle leaving the site would be required to reverse across the pedestrian footpath or alternatively undertake this manoeuvre in reverse.

[address] is a busy arterial road. The proposal would require vehicles to either reverse onto the highway or stop on the carriageway to reverse into the driveway. As such, there would be an increased risk of accidents to pedestrians and increased danger to road users from the proposed development even with reasonable visibility of the highway.

The appellant contends that the IGN3 does not specifically advocate dimension requirements for individual parking spaces or require on site turning. Nonetheless, Policy TP06 expects developments to make satisfactory provision for the parking of vehicles. In this case the proposal would not achieve this.

I have been provided a photographic list of other examples of accesses onto [address]. However, most of these are not within the immediate environs of the appeal site and those that are the Council indicates to be historic. The proposal should be considered on its own merits taking into account the current development plan policy context.

The existing occupiers have an electric vehicle that requires charging close to the meter box that is situated at the front of the dwelling. The creation of the driveway could facilitate electric charging for the cars. Whilst this would provide a benefit in reducing vehicle CO2 emissions, this does not overcome the harm that I have identified in regard of highway safety.

The proposal would bring about benefits for existing and future occupiers by providing easy access to a vehicle and this would also benefit various family members personal well-being issues. However, the harm that I have identified would give rise to highway safety issues and this safety concern is not outweighed by the appellant’s particular circumstances.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to pedestrian and highway safety. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy TP06 and the provisions of the Framework. That policy seeks, amongst other matters, development to make satisfactory provision for the parking of vehicles.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.