Appeal 6001752

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The site is an end terraced property on [address], a classified road subject to a 30 miles per hour speed limit. The dwellings on [address] are separated from the road by a footpath and a wide tree-lined grass verge which includes a tree to the northeast of the site. The site is located close to a signalised pedestrian crossing and a bus stop. At my site visit I observed several properties with frontage driveway parking and dropped kerbs in the immediate vicinity.

At my late morning weekday site visit I noted that [address] was heavily trafficked and there was a steady flow of pedestrians using the footpath and the pedestrian crossing. Whilst this is a snapshot in time there is nothing in the evidence before me to indicate that these observations are atypical of the area.

The proposal is described as an application for a dropped kerb for vehicular access and it is clear from the submission that it seeks permission for vehicular access to [address]. Given the limited depth of the frontage area, the proposal would introduce the reverse manoeuvring of vehicles onto or off [address] across the footway and grass verge. The access would be in a location where the footpath is relatively straight, and I observed that there was good visibility of the footpath in both directions from the site. Given this, the visibility of the footpath for a driver exiting the site would be good and pedestrians using the footpath would have a clear view of traffic crossing the footway. Additionally, based on my observations on site, the access would be separated from the tree within the grass verge to the northeast of the site and there is no evidence that this tree would be affected by the proposal.

However, the proposal would introduce reversing manoeuvres close to a signalised pedestrian crossing. Given the volume and mix of movement along this part of [address], this would cause potential conflicts with, and constitute a hazard to, pedestrians using the crossing at a point where pedestrians would quite reasonably expect a place of refuge from vehicles. The access would extend over a bus stop and there would be times when buses stop in front of the access to allow passengers on and off the bus and when passengers would be standing on or near the access waiting for buses. This would likely cause conflict between the use of the access and bus stop, including the access and egress from the site, buses stopping and obscuring the access and pedestrians waiting for buses, leading to harmful highway safety issues for vehicles and pedestrians.

Whilst acknowledging that other highway users would be aware of the presence of vehicular accesses in the area and that the use of the access would likely be infrequent and at low speeds, in light of the conflicts with the pedestrian crossing and bus stop, the access would cause unacceptable harm to the safety of highway users. I have not been presented with any information to demonstrate how the risk of conflicts is or could be satisfactorily mitigated.

The presence of other vehicular accesses within the area is noted. However, the background to these is unknown including their planning policy context. In any event, each case is considered on its own merits and there is no evidence before me that these accesses are similar in context to the appeal proposal in relation to their proximity to a pedestrian crossing and bus stop.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the safety of road users and pedestrians using [address]. I therefore find conflict with those aims of policies AC2 and AC4 of the Coventry Local Plan (2017) which seek to ensure that proposals do not have a negative impact on the safety of the highway network.

In support of the proposal the appellant references a 2016 planning permission for a dropped kerb1 at the appeal site which was not implemented. There is limited information before me regarding the planning policy context and highway conditions at the time that permission was granted, nor is there any information regarding the width and siting of the approved dropped kerb and its relationship to the bus stop and pedestrian crossing. This extant permission, which is not capable of being implemented, does not therefore lead me away from my conclusion above regarding the development’s harmful impacts on highway safety.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.