Appeal 3363112

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant requires the dropped kerb to serve a proposed gravelled parking area to be created in the property’s front garden. Such proposals often fall to be considered as permitted development (PD). However, the Council has clarified that [address] is a classified road, which prevents the development being classed as PD.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on local publicly accessible parking provision and the safe operation of the highway.

The appeal property is comprised within a terrace of similar dwellings. It has a small front garden, upon which the appellant wishes to create a parking space. This is because when he and his wife arrive home from work in separate vehicles, they find difficulty in finding an on-street parking space. This is not surprising since this part of [address] is subject to formal parking restrictions on both sides of the road. The only allocated space to park in this part of [address] is in a layby capable of accommodating around 5-6 vehicles sited in front of the terrace. The layby appears to be part of the public highway and at peak times I suspect that its’ parking spaces would be in high demand. However, were the dropped kerb inserted, it would effectively mean the loss of an on-street parking space.

The appellant has access to a garage forming part of a battery in [address], a short walking distance from the appeal property. [name] saw during my visit, a car may also be parked comfortably in front of the garage. Whilst the garage’s dimensions may restrict the type of car which could be accommodated within, it seemed to me that a small car could be effectively garaged here. Accordingly, the appellant has access to two private off street parking spaces.

Given that the appellant has access to alternative parking spaces a short distance from the appeal dwelling, I can fully understand the Council’s concerns, and I share the view that the loss of a publicly accessible car space is unjustified where a clear alternative exists. The loss of a car space from the layby could encourage indiscriminate parking on double yellow lines, potentially creating danger and congestion, particularly close to nearby junctions. Moreover, a successful appeal could act as a precedent tempting other residents in the terrace to pursue similar parking arrangements. The Council would find increasing difficulty in resisting future applications if this appeal succeeded, potentially leading to further indiscriminate parking on the highway. In this respect I noted that none of the other properties in the terrace, bar one, had created parking spaces in their front gardens. The exception was [address], which did not access onto the layby.

Having regard to the above I conclude that proposal conflicts with provisions of the Framework1 notably those paragraphs directed to ensuring that development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and to create places that are safe.

I appreciate that the appellant has gone about this in the right way in seeking to obtain the appropriate approvals, and has paid several hundreds of pounds to the highway and planning authorities in fees. However, the payments were application fees, not licence fees, and the payments do not automatically result in a successful outcome.

No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh those considerations that led to my overall conclusions.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.