Appeal 6002005

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site, [site address] (No 155), comprises an end-of-terrace Victorian-era dwelling which has previously been extended, situated in a residential area. No 155 fronts directly onto the footway. To the side of No 155 is a modestly-sized gravel area. No 155 benefits from a rear garden.

Part 3.[address] [name] (Oxfordshire County Council) provides that, amongst other things, driveways must be a minimum of 3 metres wide. The width of the proposed driveway, as shown on the submitted plans, at approximately 2.96 metres at the front of the plot, would not meet this requirement. The width of the proposed parking area is further constrained by the presence of a porch and a bay window to the side of No 155.

I observed that the porch in particular encroaches upon the available width of the proposed parking area by some margin. Whilst the appellant has stated that the usable parking area provides sufficient space for vehicles commonly used for domestic purposes, no evidence has been provided to show this. In the absence of substantive evidence to indicate otherwise, I find that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed driveway would be of a sufficient width for use as a parking area for contemporary domestic vehicles.

Although the width of the proposed parking area tapers outwards to approximately 4 metres towards the rear, the amount of space that would remain between an average domestic vehicle and the protruding porch has not been specified. Hence, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with the dropped kerb requirements referred to by the Council, of a 1.2 metres allowance for access to and from the front door and for emergency access.

In combination, these factors would make it more likely than not that a vehicle intended to be parked within the proposed parking area would overhang the footway. Such an obstruction of the footway would present a hazard for pedestrians, and particularly for those pedestrians with mobility difficulties or with pushchairs.

No 155 blocks views from the proposed parking area towards the south-west, meaning that the proposed development would not provide the standard visibility splays referred to by the Council, of 43 metres in each direction, at a setback of 2.4 metres. However, I accept that, once on the footway, a driver would have a much greater visibility of oncoming traffic in both directions, and from there would likely edge their vehicle cautiously onto the carriageway. Considering this, and taking account of the 20mph speed limit and the moderate traffic volumes in this location, the use of the access would not be inherently unsafe with respect to interactions between an exiting vehicle and oncoming vehicles on the carriageway.

Nevertheless, in addition to the concerns raised above with respect to pedestrian safety, I note that pedestrian visibility splays of 2 metres back from the access centreline by 2 metres either side of the access would not be achieved, as required by part 4.[address] [name]. The appellant has asserted that these standards are intended primarily for application to new estate roads, large scale developments or junctions on higher order roads, but I have not been referred to any text within the [name] which supports this proposition. In any event, I have taken account of the prevailing circumstances in the locality, including that [address] is located in a village with a semi-rural character.

Drivers exiting the proposed driveway would not have sight of pedestrians approaching the site on the footway from the south-west. Nor would pedestrians approaching the site from the south-west on the footway have clear visibility of an exiting vehicle. Although pedestrian flows might be low in this location, a vehicle exiting the proposed driveway would not be able to safely yield to any pedestrians approaching from the south-west, as they would in all likelihood not be visible from the driver’s seating position behind the car bonnet. This situation would potentially lead to dangerous collisions between an exiting vehicle and pedestrians on the footway, including children who might run ahead of their caregivers.

The proposed convex traffic mirror at the north-eastern corner of the site (which could be secured via a planning condition) would not resolve the issue of a vehicle overhanging the footway. Few details have been provided to illustrate whether such a mirror would in practice provide adequate visibility with respect to approaching pedestrians, at the same time as vehicles travelling west-to-east (as proposed by the appellant). Thus, it has not been demonstrated that the imposition of a condition requiring this type of mirror to be installed would reduce pedestrian safety risks to an acceptable level.

I observed the access and parking arrangements at 141, 143, 145, 153, 164, and [address]. None of these examples suffer from the protrusion of a porch or a bay window into their respective parking areas, unlike the appeal site. Although the appellant has asserted that smaller driveways exist at 141, 143, and [address], no measurements have been provided to substantiate this. As such, it has not been demonstrated that the examples referred to are directly comparable with the proposed development. In any event, the fact that substandard parking arrangements may exist elsewhere in the vicinity does not justify the creation of another access which would likely pose a risk to the safety of pedestrians. Hence, these examples do not change my findings on this main issue.

The CrashMap data submitted only covers 5 years (out of a potential maximum of 25 years, according to the image provided by the appellant). Given this limited time frame, and the multiple contraventions of the relevant guidance referred to above, the [address] Data does not alter my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on pedestrian safety. It would conflict with part a) of Policy M1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (Local Plan) which applies to all development proposals, and which provides that, amongst other things, proposals shall ensure that the urban environment is permeable and safe to walk through, and with part b) of Policy RE7 of the Local Plan which provides that planning permission will only be granted for development that does not have unacceptable transport impacts affecting communities, occupiers, neighbours and the existing transport network.

The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 117 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, applications for development should create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

Any historic use of the gravelled frontage for vehicle access and manoeuvring does not alter the requirement for the proposed development to be assessed on its own merits in light of the prevailing circumstances. This matter does not alter my findings on the main issue above.

Planning permission was granted in 1971 for the erection of a double garage for private cars on site. No supporting documents have been provided which might illustrate the Council’s reasoning that resulted in that grant of planning permission. Moreover, that permission was issued before the adoption of the extant development plan and associated supplementary guidance. For these reasons, that permission is of little relevance to the proposed development, and it does not change my findings on the main issue above.

The site is located within the Wolvercote with Godstow Conservation Area (conservation area). As explained in the relevant Conservation Area Appraisal, the significance of the conservation area derives in part from the fact that many of the properties in Wolvercote date from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and have retained many of their original features, and from the presence of vast expanses of open meadowland which has been unharmed by modern-day farming practices. The proposed dropped kerb and off-street parking area would constitute features which are already commonplace along [address]. Thus, the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area when considered as a whole. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

The provision of a single parking space to serve one dwelling would bring benefits which would be mainly private in nature. The creation of an electric vehicle charging point is supported by Policy M4 of the Local Plan and by national planning policy. Nevertheless, the provision of a single electric vehicle charging point (which could be secured via a planning condition), and the removal of a single vehicle from on-street parking, would in combination represent minimal public benefits. Collectively, all these matters merit little weight in support of the proposed development and they do not outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.