Appeal 6003159

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted a revised plan with the appeal which included the widening of the existing side path and the removal of front boundary enclosures. The Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised plan and the amended proposal does not substantively change that determined by the Council. I have therefore had regard to the changes proposed in this plan in my decision.

I have taken the site address from the decision notice and appeal form, as this more accurately describes the site.

The Council’s reason for refusal in the decision notice did not include reference to conflict with policies from the Development Plan. During the course of the appeal, I clarified this matter with the Council who confirmed that they considered that there would be conflict with Policies 1.1 and 1.2 of the Development Strategy 2026 Development Plan Document (2012) and Policies 7.4, 7A and 7B of the Development Management Development Plan Document (2013). The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on this, and I am satisfied that neither party would be prejudiced by my reference to these policies within my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to parking.

The appeal proposal would largely replace the existing relatively narrow front garden with permeable block paving. A vehicle crossover would be fitted on the public highway approximately in line with the location of the dwelling’s front door. The front door of the dwelling is set within an alcove.

Given the proposed location of the vehicle crossover, vehicles parking at the appeal site would access and egress the site from the public highway broadly in line with the dwelling’s front door. Whilst there may be nearby examples where vehicles are parked at an angle, no substantive evidence is before me as to how this would be achieved at the appeal site given the crossover arrangement proposed and space available, nor the effect of a vehicle parked at an angle on access arrangements to the dwelling from the street. Whilst the appellant has stated that occupants would not park in a manner that would restrict access to their front door, there is equally no mechanism before me that would restrict occupants from doing so. Given the above, alongside the limited space available to park a vehicle and the location of the crossover, I consider it likely that vehicles would park in a manner that would act to restrict direct access from the crossover to the front door. This would be regardless of whether or not the footpath was widened and boundary treatments altered.

[name] acknowledge that the guidelines set out in the Dropped Kerb Application Pack for Residents (2021) (the ‘Application Pack’) do not expressly require a linear route from the public highway to the front door, and whilst a hose run from a fire tender may be technically achievable by utilising the path to the side of the dwelling, the presence of a parked vehicle between the public highway and front door would be likely to – regardless of whether or not there was a wider side path and altered front boundary enclosures – delay response times in emergency situations due to the need to navigate a less direct route. In any event, the presence of a parked vehicle would also be likely to restrict the use of other less manoeuvrable items that may be required in an emergency situation, such as emergency stretchers.

Given the above, the proposal would be harmful to highway safety and would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’), which requires applications for development to create places that are safe and allow for access by emergency vehicles. The condition suggested by the appellant would not mitigate this harm.

Whilst, given the recessed nature of the front door, a parked car would be unlikely to restrict a safe escape route for occupants, this would not mitigate the harm I have identified that would result from the impact of the site layout on emergency service response. Therefore, whilst there may be sufficient space in the front garden to meet the physical space guidelines of the Application Pack and avoid overhanging the public highway, the proposal would nevertheless conflict with the guidelines of the Application Pack which requires a path from the public footway to the front door when a car is parked in a front garden to ensure a safe access for emergency services.

Whilst the Council have raised concerns that the proposal would constitute an illogical development of the site in terms of the space available to park a car, on the evidence before me there would likely be sufficient space for a car to physically park in the front garden, albeit in a manner that would likely impede emergency service response. No concerns have been raised with regards the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. As such, whilst the Council identify conflict with Policy 1.2 of the Development Strategy 2026 Development Plan Document (2012) and Policy 7.4 and 7A of the Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), these policies do not relate to matters of highway or public safety, and have not been determinative to my decision.

My attention has been drawn to a number of nearby dwellings with dropped kerbs and crossovers. However, I have limited details before me with regards the circumstances under which they were constructed or the planning considerations which may have applied. Additionally, on the submitted information a number of the examples do not demonstrate that access to the front door in an emergency would not be restricted. I therefore cannot draw any direct comparison with the appeal before me, and these examples do not lead me to an alternative conclusion on this issue.

Equally, whilst the proposal may provide off-street parking, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that local streets are subject to excessive levels of on-street parking, nor did my site visit lead me to an alternative conclusion. Therefore, this matter is insufficient to outweigh the harm identified. In addition, whilst I acknowledge that the existing path to the front door does not meet the Council’s width requirement, it offers a direct route to the property and, in any event, would not justify a proposal I have found to be harmful.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety, with particular regard to parking. The proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy 1.1 of the Development Strategy 2026 Development Plan Document (2012) and Policy 7B of the Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) insofar as these policies require development proposals to be accessible, and for the Borough to be a safe place to live. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework with regards safety and access for emergency vehicles.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the planning application. However, this is not a matter which has any bearing on the planning merits before me in this appeal, and does not alter my findings.

[name] acknowledge that the appeal proposals would not result in an adverse impact to living conditions or local character, these matters weigh neutrally in the overall balance. Whilst a wider side path could offer some benefits to residents, this would not outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.