Appeal 6003305

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has now served notice on the owner of the property. Neither party is prejudiced by this late correction.

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

The appeal site is a two-storey mid-terrace residential property on the northern side of [address]. In common with its neighbours, the property has a two-storey front bay window and an enclosed front garden behind a low brick wall.

[address] is a classified road serving both residential and commercial properties and is of generally straight alignment. At this eastern end, the road is flanked by terraced residential properties to the north and a large Cash & Carry warehouse to the south. The majority of houses do not have off-street parking to their frontages and as a consequence, parking occurs along both sides of the road; although this is prevented along a section of the southern side of the road, including opposite the appeal site, by double yellow lines.

The proposals constitute the creation of a dropped kerb, the removal of the front boundary wall and the paving of the frontage to provide parking. The Highway Authority (HA) requires pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m. These are not shown on the plans, and the HA advises these would not be achievable due to existing boundary treatment, including hedging, outside of the control of the property owner. I have not seen substantive evidence to undermine those findings. The proposed driveway would provide insufficient space to allow a vehicle to turn within the site and exit in a forward gear. Consequently, drivers would either need to reverse from or onto the public highway when using the access.

Taking the above into account, the visibility available for drivers using the driveway would be restricted. Pedestrians, including young children, may be difficult to see and there would be a risk of conflict. Drivers reversing into the carriageway flanked by parked cars would have restricted visibility. [address] is described by the council as a busy road and, due to the presence of commercial units to the west, carries large vehicles. As a consequence, the proposals are likely to increase the risk of conflict between road users and have an adverse impact on highway safety.

The evidence provided shows that the length of the proposed driveway is below the dimensions required in the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023). Vehicles are likely to need to be parked at an angle as a consequence, compounding my concerns regarding restricted visibility for drivers when reversing onto the carriageway. Larger cars are also likely to overhang the footway, potentially impeding pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or wheelchair users.

I noted examples where vehicular accesses have been provided including Nos 24 and 36 within the immediate proximity of the site and the appellant points out the absence of accident records. I do not know the circumstances of these other cases although am told that the access at no 36 was constructed with the benefit of a planning permission granted in October 2025. In the absence of details outlining the circumstances which led to the grant of permission in that case, it is not shown that it, or any other example is directly comparable with the appeal scheme. Accordingly, those other examples attract little favourable weight in my reasoning. Notwithstanding the accident record, their presence does not address nor negate the harm I have identified in relation to the planning merits of the proposal.

The appellant contends that the proposal would be no different to drivers reversing into parking along [address]. I cannot agree given that such manoeuvres, unlike the proposal, would not involve a vehicle crossing the footway thereby avoiding conflict with pedestrians.

The HA raises concern that the proposals would remove one on-street parking space from the highway, reducing capacity for public parking. I am not satisfied that the displacement of one parking space from the roadway onto the frontage of the property would result in parking pressures likely to cause harm to highway safety.

In its reason for refusal, the council cites Policy AC1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (2017) (the LP). As this policy does not relate to highway safety, it is not determinative in this main issue. Policy AC2 of the LP 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.

I have found that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety and does not accord with the development plan as a whole. There are no other considerations that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.