Appeal 6003302

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development differs between the application form and the decision notice. The description used in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed access on highway safety in relation to pedestrians and drivers using [address].

[address] is a B-classification, tree-lined road leading to the City Centre. Whilst a dual carriageway, I observed during my site visit that on-street parking is prevalent on both north-west-bound and south-east-bound carriageways such that the road functions along lengthy sections as a single carriageway road. Traffic speeds are restricted to 30mph. The appeal property is a two-storey terraced house. It is located close to a bend in the road and a cross-over in the grassed central reservation where vehicles exiting [address] may cross to gain access to the south-east-bound carriageway. Immediate neighbouring properties do not have off-street parking to their frontages, however I noted from my site visit that several properties along this section of road are provided with vehicular accesses, including those referenced by the appellant.

The proposals would provide a dropped kerb with a width commensurate with the site frontage and remove a low boundary wall to facilitate the provision of a vehicular access. A parking area of permeable block paving to the front of the dwelling would be provided. A highway tree is located on the grass verge between the pavement and the carriageway, further across the site frontage and substantially larger than the appellant’s plan indicates.

There would be insufficient space to turn a car within the site. Drivers using the proposed access would accordingly need to reverse either into or out of the driveway. Drivers would have adequate visibility along the pavement in both directions and I am satisfied therefore, that pedestrian safety would not be harmed. However, visibility to the north-west along the carriageway itself is hindered by a combination of parked cars along the nearside lane of the road, and the highway tree in the verge. This is compounded by the property’s location close to the inside of a bend such that views of approaching traffic are markedly restricted.

The presence of the tree would impede vehicular movements into and out of the driveway. I note that the application forms confirm that there are no proposals to remove this tree. In the likely event that cars were parked on the roadside either side of the proposed access, vehicular movements would be restricted and the ability to safely and efficiently manoeuvre into the flow of on-coming traffic would be affected. The limited visibility to the north-west and the cross-carriageway movement of vehicles joining from [address] would all add to the risk of conflict within the highway. Given the restricted visibility available when reversing, this adds significantly to the concerns I have described about the limited visibility and the risk of a vehicle existing or entering the site coming into conflict with road users. I find that the use of the access in these circumstances is likely to give rise to an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety

My attention has been drawn to several other vehicular accesses serving dwellings along [address] and I viewed all of these during my site visit. I note that none of the examples provided have an access hindered by the presence of a large highway tree or is located close to a bend in the road where visibility is restricted such as the circumstances at the appeal site. This includes the two examples at Nos 242 and 250 which were allowed by an Inspector on appeal. I am not convinced that these other cases are therefore a direct parallel with the appeal proposals which nevertheless I have treated on its own merits.

The council cites Policy AC1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (2017) in its reason for refusal. As this policy does not relate to highway safety, it is not determinative in relation to this main issue. Policy AC2 requires that development proposals mitigate any negative impact on the safety of the highway network. For the reasons above, I find conflict with this policy. Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework advises that development should be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

For the reasons given above, the proposals do not accord with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.