Appeal 3363767

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for front driveway for one car space with crossover at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2024/3823 and subject to the Schedule of Conditions to this Decision.

The proposed drawings show existing gates along part of the frontage to the appeal property. The Council advises that the front gates are unauthorised and have previously been refused permission. On the evidence available to me it also appears that these gates are the subject of separate enforcement action. Irrespective of this, the existing gates are not included in the description of the development on the application form and these do not form part of the proposal before me, which is reflected in my Decision. Moreover, in its Reason for Refusal, the Council has not cited the policies to which it referred when refusing planning permission for the gates. I have therefore assessed the scheme as having an open entrance.

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

The appeal site comprises an existing dwelling seeking to introduce a new vehicle crossover to facilitate an off-street parking space to the front of this dwelling. The proposed crossover would be located on the left side of the frontage, adjacent to the boundary with [address], the neighbouring property which is currently operating as a medical practice. The medical practice benefits from a similar crossover and front parking arrangement.

Associated works include replacing a large section of existing concrete paving with permeable gravel laid over a 200mm thick hardcore base. There would be two gravel strips, each measuring 500mm wide by 5m deep, to broadly demarcate the parking space.

The section of [address] where the crossover is proposed is subject to a 20mph speed limit. Immediately south of the appeal site lies a bend in the road, along with several on-street parking bays. The site is also situated between the junctions of [address] with [address] and [address]. Collectively, these features contribute to a naturally traffic-calmed environment, reducing vehicle speeds.

Opposite [address] is a pedestrian refuge island, which provides a safe pause point for pedestrians crossing this road. From the vantage point opposite the appeal site, the proposed crossover would be positioned just to the right of this island. In this configuration, drivers entering or exiting the property would have clear visibility of both the refuge island and any pedestrians using it. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed crossover would interfere with the safe operation of the island, even in scenarios where vehicles exit to the right while other traffic is present.

Also, the proposed arrangement mirrors the setup at [address], where the parking space for this property is also located near the pedestrian refuge island. Moreover, the medical practice generates substantial footfall, including regular use of the pedestrian refuge island. Based on the evidence before me, this and other similar configurations involving vehicle crossovers near pedestrian refuge islands in the surrounding area appear to function safely.

Therefore, and in the absence of any substantive technical evidence to the contrary, I am not persuaded that the proposal would result in any harm to highway safety. As such, this accords with Policy LP50 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023) which stipulates that new vehicle crossovers must not pose a road safety hazard. Accordingly, the proposal aligns with London Plan Policy T4, which along with other things says development proposals should not increase road danger.

In imposing conditions, I have included the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the planning permission. A condition specifying the relevant plans and drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. However, for the reasons already given this condition excludes the existing gates.

Additionally, a condition stipulating that the approved parking area must not be used until the vehicle crossover is fully installed is both reasonable and necessary in the interest of highway safety.

A condition to ensure that the new hard surfacing either allows water to soak through (porous materials) or channels it to a permeable area within the property boundary, is necessary for promoting sustainable drainage and to prevent surface water runoff onto the highway.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Except for any detail concerning the gates shown on the proposed plans, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans: Site location plans: 355/01 [name]; Ground floor driveway plan: 355/49 [name] and Front elevation – driveway proposed: 355/63.

The use of the parking space hereby permitted shall not commence until the vehicle crossover has been provided in accordance with approved plan: Ground floor driveway plan: 355/49 [name].

The proposed area of hard surfacing shall either be made of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.