Appeal 3340677

The appeal is dismissed.

The applicant describes the proposal as for a dropped kerb and drive to the front of the property for 2 cars, approximately 7 metres by 5 metres. Drop kerb approx. 1 left drop and 1 right drop times 5 flats. The local planning authority (LPA) has described it as for a vehicular access and hardstanding. I have used the latter in the banner for reasons of brevity.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.

The appeal dwelling is part of a line of properties set back from [address] and at a higher level from it and with a common building line. The front amenity spaces have no hedges or walls abutting the road, nor have they any buildings, other structures, or physical boundary demarcations between the properties. The amenity spaces are uniformly grassed.

The amenity spaces, including that of the host property, are generally more level with [address] for about the length of a vehicle, but then they rise up steeply to the dwellings above. Appeal Ref: : APP/R1010/D/24/3340677

[address] has no on-road parking restrictions in the vicinity of the appeal property and has a 30mph speed restriction. On my site visit, I was able to note that on-road parking occurs on the opposite side to the appeal property, while the appeal documents include photographic evidence of a vehicle being parked parallel to [address] on the grassed amenity land in the vicinity to the host dwelling .I was able to see confirmation of this on my site dwelling where there was a parked vehicle in this same position.

The proposed development would create a vehicular crossing and parking for two vehicles at right angles to the road, situated on the currently grassed area to the host property and abutting [address]. Drivers would have to manoeuvre on [address] to enter and leave the parking spaces. There would not be the possibility of drivers entering and also leaving in forward gear.

The Highway Authority (HA) requires sight lines of 43 metres when measured back from the carriageway by 2.4 metres for a new vehicular access to a classified road where there is a speed limit of 30mph. Such sight lines should be over land within the public highway or over land within the ownership or control of the appellant. In this particular case, the HA considers that the sight lines, when measured in such terms, only extends to 15 metres in either direction.

While the appellant concedes that development on land to either side of the host property cannot be controlled so as to meet the above specifications, it is the case that the dwellings have clearly been built several decades ago and no such impediments are present on their amenity spaces, possibly because of legal occupancy restrictions, though I have no such details before me.

However, the appellant concedes that the grassed areas abutting [address] are sometimes used for parking cars parallel to [address], and while I have no information as to its frequency or the exact locations, highway safety would be adversely affected if this occurs within the sight lines, as seems possible, when drivers would be manoeuvring into and out of the proposed spaces. Parked cars on the opposite side of the road and the subsequent narrowing of the highway for passing traffic would exacerbate the harm.

The appellant has referred to other instances where kerb crossings have been allowed. However, I have no specific details of the planning and highway circumstances surrounding them, or whether they have occurred before or after the adoption of the development plan for the area. In any event, I have determined this planning application upon its individual merits.

I have taken account of the fact that the provision of off-road parking would reduce on-road parking, to the benefit of traffic flow. However, this does not overcome my concern regarding drivers having to manoeuvre on the highway to gain access to and from the proposed spaces.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policy ITCR11 of the Bolsover District Local Plan 2020 which, amongst other Appeal Ref: : APP/R1010/D/24/3340677 things, requires parking to be created in a safe environment, avoiding conflicts with other road users including pedestrians and cyclists.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.