Appeal 6002663

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on on-street parking and the highways network.

Permission in principle has been granted for a minimum of one and a maximum of two dwellings on the site1. Subsequently, planning permission was refused for two dwellings on the site because of safety concerns associated with the proposed vehicular access2. The proposal the subject of this appeal is for a car-free development. The Council’s concern relates to the potential impact of on-street parking on highway safety.

The site, which is vacant, abuts the slip road onto the A20, where [address] narrows to a single width carriageway. The preceding section of [address] is a two way road through the village of Farningham, which narrows in places with double yellow lines and parking restrictions in force. Although there are no double yellow lines in the vicinity of the appeal site, the section of road between [address] and the appeal site is designated as a Clearway.

Farningham benefits from a moderate range of local facilities, including a convenience store attached to a petrol filling station, public houses, a doctor’s surgery, a day nursery, a village hall and a church. Supermarkets deliver to addresses in Farningham, and higher order facilities including supermarkets and schools are available in Swanley and beyond. However, Swanley is not easily accessible on foot and, although there is a footway to the nearest bus stop, services are somewhat irregular during the day and do not operate in the evenings or on Sundays. The nearest railway station is at Eynsford, which is not convenient to walk to, whilst public rights of way locally are not generally suited to pedestrian 1 LPA reference 22/02753/PIP 2 LPA reference 24/03067/FUL use in darkness or poor weather. As a consequence, the proposal would not realistically function as a car free development.

A parking survey was undertaken using the [name]. It calculated that between the appeal site and the junction of [address] and [address], a distance of approximately 300m, there is capacity for [address] on the road, excluding dropped kerbs, narrow sections of road and yellow lined sections, but including the Clearway. The survey was undertaken on two weekday nights and found that, on the busier of the two nights, 79% of available spaces were occupied.

A four bedroom dwelling is proposed, for which Kent County Council’s Parking Standards require three car spaces. However, census data indicates that around 40% of households in the local area have only one vehicle and 30% have two vehicles, with less than 20% having three vehicles or more. Based on this data, it is reasonable to assume that the proposal could generate less than the full requirement of three parking spaces, notwithstanding that as a four bedroom dwelling it would be one of the larger households in the area.

When the notional requirement of three parking spaces for the proposed dwelling is factored in, 84% of available spaces would be occupied, although this would reduce slightly in the event that the proposed house only required two spaces. In either scenario, occupancy rates would be only slightly below the 85% threshold at which parking stress is considered to occur.

The survey included parking spaces within the Clearway, despite stopping not being allowed even to pick up and set down passengers. Were the Clearway restrictions to be enforced, [address]’s capacity to accommodate parked cars in the vicinity of the appeal site would be substantially reduced. In these circumstances, it is likely that parking stress would occur, with existing and future residents potentially unable to find space to park at night, leading to indiscriminate parking and the risk of driveways being blocked or even the highway being impeded. Residents or visitors to the appeal site might then be tempted to stop or wait directly outside the appeal site, where [address] narrows to a single width carriageway before joining the A20.

[address] has a 30mph speed limit, drivers are likely to be anticipating joining the A20, which has a 60mph speed limit, and therefore may be accelerating. Visibility at the junction of [address] and the A20 appears to be adequate, but the geometry of the junction means that drivers must either use their mirrors or look over their shoulder before joining the A20, which makes it a difficult manoeuvre. [name] have been advised that there has been a series of crashes in the vicinity of the site in the past three years, I have not been supplied with details of the incidents.

I recognise that the Clearway, if enforced, could improve the free flow of traffic by ensuring that parked vehicles do not obstruct the road. However, my observations and the evidence of the parking survey indicate that this is not the case. The proposal would result in increased on street parking which could give rise to parking stress, as a consequence of which indiscriminate parking would risk impeding vehicles joining the A20, with a resultant adverse impact on highway safety, particularly at night.

To reduce the risk of parking or waiting outside the appeal site, the appellant has proposed a Traffic Regulation Order, which would relocate the Clearway to the single carriageway section of [address] and introduce double yellow lines on this section. Although the Council has highlighted the lack of regular parking enforcement in rural areas, I observed that double yellow lines are adhered to in Farningham in a way that the Clearway is not. Yellow lining therefore has the potential to provide a highway safety benefit compared with the current situation, ensuring that the single width section of [address] is kept clear from parked cars and waiting vehicles, whilst parking restrictions are lifted from the two way section of [address]. However, local residents would have the opportunity to comment on and potentially object to a Traffic Regulation Order, meaning there is no guarantee that it would be made.

In the absence of certainty that double yellow lines would be introduced and the Clearway relocated, there is a risk of indiscriminate on street parking resulting in a potentially harmful impact on the safety of the highway network. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies EN1 and T2 of the Allocations and Development Management Plan Adopted February 2015, which together require proposals to provide adequate parking facilities taking account of specific local circumstances.

Farningham Conservation Area includes the historic core of the village and the [name]. Its significance derives from its location at a point where the historic London to Dover road crossed the river, and the crossing point retains an eighteenth century bridge. The village contains medieval timber-framed houses and a weatherboarded mill complex, along with a number of eighteenth century inns and houses illustrating its evolution as a staging post. Farningham has strong visual connections to its surrounding landscape, which includes the North Downs.

The appeal site is located beyond the outer edge of the conservation area, where ribbon development has occurred alongside [address]. There is limited intervisibility between the appeal site and the conservation area, as a consequence of which the appeal site does not contribute to the significance of the designated heritage asset. The proposal could give rise to increased on street parking within the conservation area, resulting in a very moderate visual impact, but not to the extent of adversely affecting the character or appearance of the conservation area.

An interested party supports the proposal as it would use land purposefully, which it would, but this benefit must be balanced against highway safety. Developing a site with no vehicular access could give rise to highway safety issues during the construction phase and, were I minded to allow the appeal, I would have given consideration to attaching a condition requiring the submission and approval of a construction management plan. It has been suggested that the site could be accessed from neighbouring properties which possess driveways, but such a proposal is not before me.

The occupiers of the proposed dwelling would not be able to install electric vehicle charging points, but this is true of many dwellings without a driveway, and would not prevent future occupiers from owning electric vehicles and charging them elsewhere.

A house is proposed, and the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, although I have not been advised of the precise extent of the shortfall. Therefore, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or asset of particular importance, as defined in Footnote 7, do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies as set out in paragraph 11(d)ii and permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Although the proposal is for a car free development, future residents would be reliant to a degree on the private vehicle, meaning that the proposal would require on street parking. There is limited availability of on street parking in the vicinity of the site, with a resultant risk of indiscriminate parking and waiting close to the junction of [address] and the A20. I attach significant negative weight to the resultant adverse impact on highway safety.

The delivery of a house would be a social benefit, whilst economic benefits would accrue from the construction phase and from expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers. The proposed yellow lining on the single carriageway section of [address] would provide a potential highway safety benefit, were a Traffic Regulation Order to be made. Positively contributing to the Council’s housing land supply, albeit in a modest manner for a single dwelling, is a benefit given the Council’s housing land supply shortfall. I therefore attach moderate positive weight to the benefits that the scheme delivers.

Taking all matters into account, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Consequently, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as defined in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.