Appeal 3344304

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The proposed development would involve the blocking up of three garage entrances to the rear of No. [site address] , and the provision of three new entrances on the front elevation, facing the street.

At present, the garages are accessed by utilising an archway to reach the rear courtyard area. The existing access does require vehicle users to cross the pavement. However, even taking into account of the wall that exists to the right of the access when exiting, the generous width of the archway means that visibility is reasonable. In contrast, it is clear from the approved plans that the proposed new entrances to the garages would be significantly narrower than the archway. As such, it seems inevitable that there would be less visibility than offered by the existing access arrangements, and that this could lead to an increased risk to pedestrian safety. In particular, it is likely that vehicle users would have to pull out onto the pavement before being able to see any pedestrians. It does not appear that the appellant has produced any technical evidence that could lead me to a different conclusion on this matter.

Furthermore, three new garage entrance ways would result in pedestrians having to navigate five vehicle crossover points in quick succession which also increases risk. The fact that there is a primary school very close to the appeal site enhances the importance of this additional risk as it is likely that there would be significant numbers of pedestrians, including small children, using the pavement at certain times of day.

I note that the appellant has stated that the existing garages are not usable due to the constrained space in the courtyard when other cars are parked there. However, even if that is the case, the proposed development would lead to a greater level of potential harm than would arise from cars being parked in suitable on-street spaces. The appellant has also suggested that a camera system could be installed to allow users of the garages to see pedestrians on a screen before moving their vehicles. However, if the screens were situated near to the garage doors, they would only be seen if vehicle users were exiting the garages in forward gear. This could not be controlled. In any event, it would not be possible to enforce the use and maintenance of the camera system via condition, and therefore this suggested course of action would not sufficiently mitigate the additional risk identified.

As a result, I am satisfied that the proposed development would have the potential to increase risk in relation to highway safety. As such, it would conflict with Policies 57 and 61 of the [name] 2015, which in part, seek to ensure that new developments are well designed and that they can be accessed safely.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.