Appeal 3360243

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for Driveway to the front of property at [site address] n accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P24/0217/HH, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions :

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: RJAS_46BRD_BP_A.

The description of development appearing on the decision notice is ‘Creation of 2 No. parking spaces’, but omits reference to providing access (for vehicles). It is not known if the appellant agreed the change of description, but whereas the provision of a new access is implicit in the description on the application form from its use of the term ‘driveway’, the Council’s description does not expressly refer to permission for access. At the time of my visit the forecourt area of No.46 was in the process of being block-paved. Bearing in mind a dropped kerb would be required to use the intended parking spaces I have used the description appearing on the application form in the interests of clarity.

The Main Issue is the effect of providing access to two parking spaces on highway safety.

[address] is a relatively narrow estate road which, with others, serves an area of mid-twentieth century suburban housing largely provided with modest-sized gardens front and rear. The appeal site, [site address] (No.46), is a two-storey, formerly semi-detached house which has become terraced by the recent addition of a new, similar house located at a corner of [address] where a short cul-de-sac1 leads to a general parking area within the wider estate. The parking area appears little used providing access to a small number of garages and some overflow parking.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to direct conflict with a single development plan policy. Policy PSP11 of the [site address] Council Local Plan, Sites and Places Plan (November 2017) applies to ‘development proposals which generate a demand for travel’ with a number of criteria to be applied. As the matter to be considered relates to an existing dwelling, this policy has little relevance. The need for parking arises from its relocation as a result of the construction of a new dwelling adjacent that has incorporated what appears to have been the original parking provision for No.46.

The Council justify their objection to the change in parking arrangements by reference to the proximity of the junction with [address] and a suggested conflict with the Council’s dropped-kerb guidance. That, in itself, does not indicate an impact on highway safety. Further, contrary to the Council’s comments 2, many houses near this junction have frontage parking, including 41,43,44 & [address]. I have not been provided with evidence which suggests these existing access points have impaired highway safety.

As a quiet residential road of limited width, my observations are that users exercise care such that vehicle speeds would be low and, whilst I note the Council’s conclusions3, my assessment directs that there is very little actual risk to users and pedestrians from introducing this access. I therefore conclude that regarding Paragraph 116 of the Framework, which indicates that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety, that the appeal should be allowed.