Appeal 3341061

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 main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site is located on [address], which is a busy classified road. The site is a short distance from a signal-controlled crossing and multiple other road junctions. There are two schools within proximity of the site, and a third nearby on [address]. The appeal property itself is an end of terrace dwelling with an area of land to its unattached side. The appeal proposal is, in effect, for the creation of a dropped kerb with block paving within the appeal property.

During my site visit I observed a continuous flow of traffic along this section of [address] and frequent queues from the traffic lights past the appeal site. Whilst my visit was a snapshot in time, I have no reason to conclude that this was not a normal occurrence in this location.

The plans submitted with the application do not detail the extent of the proposed driveway nor where vehicles would park or turn. However, from the limited information before me, it would be extremely difficult to manoeuvre a vehicle within the appeal site to enable it to enter and exit in a forward gear. Whilst the Appellant has indicated that this may be possible by utilising the Appeal Planning Officer APP/U4610/D/24/3341061 area of land at the property frontage, or the rear garden, very little evidence to demonstrate this has been provided.

In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, vehicles would be forced to manoeuvre on the pavement or the main carriageway which would in turn have an unacceptable increase in highway danger. This is particularly the case given the high volume of traffic and proximity of road junctions which increase the likelihood of conflict between vehicles emerging from the site and other highway users, including bicycles and pedestrians.

My attention has also been drawn to the planning history of the site and the new dwelling which is now [address]. From the evidence before me, the approved plans included a shared access with the appeal property and a turning area to enable vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear. However, from my site visit, this access arrangement either was not implemented or has been altered to remove this shared access arrangement. Either way, should there be any breach of planning control this is a matter for the Council.

I also acknowledge that there are other properties in the area with driveways which do not benefit from turning facilities, and that as part of a traffic calming scheme there is a 30mph speed limit. However, none of these factors constitute a compelling reason to now grant permission for an otherwise unacceptable development. Moreover, each proposal must be assessed on its individual merits.

As set out above, the proposal would result in significant harm to highway safety and would conflict with Policy AC2 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017, which amongst other matters seeks to ensure that new development proposals do not result in unacceptable highway safety issues.

In their consultation response the Local Highway Authority asserted that the appeal site includes adopted land, which the appellant has challenged. However, this did not form part of the Council’s refusal and falls beyond the scope of this appeal.

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

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