Appeal 6001968

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is an end of terrace dwelling on a corner plot which fronts [address]. The existing dwelling is set back from the road behind a front garden which is bound by a hedge. The road to the front of the appeal site has parking bays on either side.

The road corners [address] and [address] at a right angle. During my site visit, I observed that vehicles turning this corner in either direction are required to give way to oncoming traffic owing to the presence of parking bays on either side of the road on [address]. Although these factors mean that vehicles are required to turn the corner at a low speed, they also require a greater level of concentration to navigate the narrow road safely.

The proposed dropped kerb and vehicle cross over would be positioned near to the boundary with [address]. Despite its position, it would be very near to the junction that requires drivers to have a greater level of concentration. The proposal would introduce another hazard for drivers to navigate at an already constrained junction. As such, the proposal would result in harm to highway safety.

Although much of the front garden would be covered with hardstanding, given the position of the vehicle crossover and depth of the hardstanding, it is unlikely that vehicles would be able to turn around on the driveway. As such, vehicles would be required to reverse into or out of the driveway. Given the requirement for such a manoeuvre combined with the proximity of the junction, the proposal would result in conflict between vehicles and pedestrians owing to the lack of intervisibility. In this regard, the proposal would harm pedestrian safety.

A number of dropped kerbs are near to the appeal site, most notably No 1 and [address]. However, these differ from the scheme before me owing to their position on a straight section of road, which is further from the nearest junction than the appeal site. As such, they do not justify the development before me.

I understand that the appellant is required to park in nearby streets and walk home. [name] sympathise with these circumstances, that is ultimately a private benefit that does not outweigh the harm I have found to highway safety.

Accordingly, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to highway safety. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies IM4, IM(a) and IM(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) and Policies T2, T4 and T6 of The London Plan (2021), which collectively seek to ensure that developments contribute to improved accessibility and safety and not increase road danger, as well as protecting the Boroughs footpaths.

Reference has been made to the lack of a site visit by the Council in the determination of the application. However, this has no bearing on the merits before me and I have undertaken my own site visit.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.