Appeal 6001435

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. In addition, the decision notice refers to the development as the formation of vehicular access. Notwithstanding the above which is taken from the application form, I have taken this additional detail into account.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a former public convenience that has been converted into an office. It is located in an area characterised by a mix of commercial and residential uses. The building is set back from the road, with a paved area and grass verge to the front. Bollards are installed along the grass verge, running parallel to the footway. A path from the footway leads to the main entrance of the building, while a second path provides access to a gated side entrance. This gate leads to the rear of the building and serves as a fire escape route for the neighbouring nursery premises.

[address] (A223) is a classified road and forms part of the [name] network. The appeal site is located in close proximity to a zebra crossing and the junction with [address]. White zig zag markings are present on both sides of the carriageway to the front of the appeal site, as well as along the centre line, delineating the controlled area on either side of the zebra crossing.

It was apparent during my site visit that this section of the [address] is busy with frequent vehicle and pedestrian movements. This is attributable to the neighbouring community centre and nursery, the parade of retail units directly opposite, the nearby zebra crossing and the junction with [address], as well as the presence of a bus stop in close proximity.

The Highway Authority’s consultation response, along with the Council’s Officer report, both refer to the London Borough of [name] of [name]: Policy and Guidelines (2018) (the Guidelines) which state that matters relating to highway safety and the free flow of traffic must be considered. These include the presence of zig zag markings, visibility and traffic flow, among other relevant factors. They also seek to resist vehicle crossovers within ten metres of the first radial kerb of any junction. Although the Guidelines are not referred to in the reason for refusal, it clearly provides direction on the Council’s consideration with regards to vehicular crossovers.

The proposal would facilitate a single parking space parallel to the front of the building and highway. This would conflict with the Guidelines which state a parking area must be at a right angle to the carriageway. Due to the constrained nature of the parking space, it would not be possible for a vehicle to turn within the site, meaning that entering and exiting in a forward gear could not be achieved. As a result, motorists would be required to perform a hazardous reversing manoeuvre.

The resultant need for vehicles to exit the site in reverse gear over the pavement would severely restrict the driver visibility of oncoming traffic and pedestrians, particularly those approaching the junction at [address] and pedestrians at the nearby zebra crossing. Consequently, the proposal would give rise to a significant interference with the free flow of traffic on the road, and to pedestrian safety whilst utilising the footway and zebra crossing.

This would be unsatisfactory in terms of highway safety and conflict with Policy 32 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP) which seeks to ensure that the potential impact of any development on road safety is not significantly adversely affected and Policy T4(f) of the London Plan (2021) (LoP) which seeks to ensure that development proposals do not increase road danger. The Council has also identified a conflict with Policy 30 of the LP, which relates to parking provisions for new developments. However, as the proposal concerns a vehicular crossover serving an existing use, the policy is not directly applicable in this instance.

It is unclear when the dropped kerb for the [name] was installed, if it was after the Guidelines or whether it benefits from planning consent. Either way, the presence of an existing development does not justify the harm caused by this proposal. The example at the neighbouring community centre and nursery would require driving across the zebra crossing and over the associated tactile paving. Although the photograph provided shows two cars parked to the front, there is a ‘no parking’ sign installed on the outside of the building suggesting that parking here is not permissible.

The example of a car parked to the front of the ‘Boots and Garments’ shop opposite the site, would also involve driving across the zebra crossing. Likewise, the example at the corner of the [address] junction would necessitate driving over the dropped pedestrian kerb or over the pavement. Neither scenario appears to involve a lawful vehicular dropped kerb, and therefore neither can be considered a comparable precedent.

I appreciate that it would be more convenient and attractive commercially to park outside the office, however, there is parallel on street parking a short walking distance from the site on the opposite side of the road. I did not observe any highway signage indicating that it was subject to restrictions, such as permit parking only or limits on duration of stay. There is no compelling reason before me to suggest why visitors and users of the office could not park here in light of the harms that I have found.

The development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.