Appeal 6001040

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to front garden to create off road parking space for one car for EV charging point at [site address] , TRING, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0142/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby approved shall commence not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing No: [name] – Elevations and Plan – Drawing 502.

The main issues are: • the effect of the work on the availability of both off-road and on-street parking; and • the effect on pedestrian and highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property, which is set back from [address] on slightly higher land, in a long frontage of similar properties. Most, but not all, of these have no vehicular access to the highway, but there are designated public parking bays along the roadside which also straddle part of the pavement.

It is proposed to excavate a flat area of land in the front garden to form an off-road parking space. This would require the deletion of at least one of the on-street parking spaces. The appellant says the new parking space is needed so that she can charge an electric vehicle in her garden and also help overcome the problems associated with the high demand for spaces locally and getting children and elderly people safely out of cars parked on the road-side in the designated spaces.

At the visit I noted that there were some off-road parking spaces around No. 64 but these were located at a bus stop where there is no on-street parking bays. Both parties also refer to parking bays nearby at No’s 55, 56, 57 and [address], which are said to have been created in 2020 under the same Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) but the highway authority says that the reason for this approval is unclear.

The proposal also needs to be considered in the context that there is a 20mph speed limit applying to [address] at this point and the highway authority acknowledges that the area suffers from parking stress with parking taking place on the verge opposite the site. The authority also acknowledges that pedestrian flows in the area are low.

Notwithstanding the decision to allow the existing nearby spaces, the principle of the loss of an on-street space conflicts with the highway’s authority’s TRO. This has to be considered in the public interest to make best provision for parking, balanced with highway safety aspects.

On the face of it, the proposal would result in an increase in parking provision locally. However, in practical terms the loss of the on-street space to the public is unlikely to be utilised by the appellant as being able to park in the ‘freed up’ space. It is more likely that the area in front of the new driveway, the ‘cross over’, would be designated as ‘no parking’ so that the access to the proposed space in the front garden remained unobstructed.

Therefore, in addition to the conflict with the TRO the proposal is only likely to have a neutral effect on the number and availability of spaces and will be unlikely to realise the benefits of an additional space that the appellant predicts.

Overall on this issue, in highway terms I find that the proposal would have a neutral effect on parking provision in an area of recognised parking stress, notwithstanding the objection in principle to the loss of on-street parking under the TRO.

The present position of road-side parking involves vehicles normally having to ‘parallel park’ off the carriageway. This is different to the current proposal where vehicles using the proposed off-road parking space will have to reverse either off or onto the highway through the gap between the vehicles parked in the designated parking area either side of the new driveway. Vehicles would also have to reverse over the pedestrian pavement.

In terms of the visibility available, the obstruction by the presence of other parked vehicles would be likely to impinge on the recommend visibility splay of 2.4m by 25m. Although this is not ideal, I have also had regard to the relevant guidance in Manual for Steets 2 (2010)1. Based on the research carried out by the CIHT, Section 10.7.1/2 indicates that where visibility is restricted by parked vehicles, 1 [name] of Highways and Transportation ‘drivers of vehicles on the minor arm tend to nose out carefully until they can see on-coming traffic and vice versa’. The guidance concludes that in some circumstances where speeds are low some encroachment may be acceptable. Given that there is a 20mph speed limit locally I am satisfied that the restrictions on visibility are not material in the vicinity of the appeal site.

In relation to pedestrian safety, the Council says that splays of 0.65m x 0.65m are needed but these are not shown on the submitted plans. However, considering the proposed clear space between the gate piers at the edge of the property boundaries with No’s 55 and 53 there is ample room to achieve the required visibility. Pedestrians on the pavement will be able to see vehicles reversing or driving into the space and vice versa for drivers.

I conclude on this issue that the proposal for the formation of an off-road parking space will not have a harmful effect on pedestrian or highway safety. As such there is no conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS8 regarding sustainable transport or Policy CS12 regarding a safe and satisfactory access.

On the main issues I have found that while the proposal would be in conflict with the TRO, similar off-road parking has been accepted nearby and the proposal would have a neutral effect on the availability of parking in this area with parking stress at present. I have also found that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on pedestrian or highway safety. There is no conflict with the relevant policies in the development plan.

The Council indicates that the proposal conflicts with guidance on achieving sustainable transport set out in paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, I conclude that safe and suitable access can be achieved with no loss of parking overall. Moreover, section 2 of the Framework makes clear that in achieving sustainable development, planning decisions should help adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy. Paragraph 117 e) advises that development should be designed to enable charging of plug-in and ultra -low emission vehicles in safe and convenient locations.

I conclude that the proposal would help achieve this in planning terms and this outweighs the objection in principle under the TRO. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

The Council does not put forward conditions. The only ones that are necessary are the statutory condition on the commencement of the development, and one to ensure that the proposal is carried out in accordance with the submitted plans.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.