Appeal 6003403

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are: • The effect of the use of the proposed access on highway safety; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey terraced house that is located on a main road that forms part of the [address] Network as identified in the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 (the Local Plan). The site benefits from a pleasant small front garden with established trees and bounded by an attractive stone wall. There is a mini supermarket and a busy garage opposite and at the time of my visit, which I appreciate is a snapshot in time, a lorry was unloading goods at the supermarket.

There is a footway in front of the properties on [address] at this location, as well as uncontrolled parking bays within the carriageway. Spaces are limited and at the time of my visit, which I appreciate is a snapshot in time, all were occupied. There are three properties with off road parking that form part of the terrace and at these locations the road is marked to prevent on road parking and to provide access to the aforementioned off road parking spaces. The highway at this location is single carriageway with many competing demands of differing users due to the busy highway, the supermarket and garage and increased levels of pedestrians due to the proximity of services.

The amount of space for vehicle parking at the proposed dwelling would be limited and would not allow for vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear. Given the limited space to manoeuvre, it would require the occupiers to reverse out of the parking area, across the footway and onto [address]. Whilst only a snapshot in time, I observed that [address] is heavily trafficked.

Vehicles reversing into the proposed parking area would be forced to wait in the carriageway until the road was sufficiently clear to complete the manoeuvre, particularly when the on-street parking bays are occupied. Approaching vehicles may not anticipate stationary vehicles in the carriageway and this could lead to an increased potential for collisions.

Vehicles parked in the on-street parking bays, would also adversely affect visibility sight lines of oncoming traffic, particularly in the instances where a vehicle would reverse onto [address]. I accept that the parking bays would not always be occupied. Nonetheless at the times that they are, there would be an increased risk of conflict between all users, which would increase highway danger.

Furthermore, given the volume of traffic using [address], there would be the likelihood that the occupants would be required to wait for some time when exiting the appeal site in a vehicle, blocking the footway, and forcing pedestrians to wait or manoeuvre into the highway to get past. This would be particularly problematic for people with mobility or visual impairments and parents with small children. It would increase the likelihood of bringing pedestrians into conflict with moving vehicles and thus hazardous highway conditions.

As such, these manoeuvres would be dangerous due to the competing vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the volume of traffic at this location, the restricted visibility when reversing and the attention required to navigate all these competing pressures at this location. [name] note that the appellant feels unsafe accessing their car on the road, I am not satisfied that the proposal would improve highway safety for either pedestrians or drivers including the appellant.

To the contrary, it appears that it would put vehicles and other pedestrians at a greater risk than is presently the case. I have not been provided with any highway surveys or assessments that would lead me to take a different view. Neither have I any accident records to demonstrate that the appellant’s vehicle is not secure when it is parked in the on street parking bays. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would prevent increased road danger.

I note that the nearby properties, No’s 26, 30 and 32, benefit from a vehicular crossover and I recognise the appellant’s feeling of unfairness. However, I do not have any substantive evidence to demonstrate under which development plan and against which policies those crossovers were considered or if they even have planning permission at all. I therefore afford them little weight in support of the subject appeal.

I also note that other road users park in the on-road parking spaces adjacent to the appeal site. However, the area is not within a controlled parking zone despite the appellant raising that parking in the area is difficult and is restricted in time where available. Furthermore, these matters are not within the scope of this appeal and even if they were, would not outweigh the harm identified.

I conclude that the proposed access would have an unacceptable, adverse impact on highway safety. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with policies TA1, TA2 and TA3 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek safe vehicular access, with improved road safety for all users and prevent the loss of on street parking in congested areas. It would also fail to comply with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as they seek safe and suitable access for all users and to prevent adverse impacts on highway safety.

The proposal would require the removal of attractive trees and the loss of most of the attractive stone boundary wall. Both make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, and their removal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. I have not been provided with any plans that demonstrate mitigations for their removal.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies DE1 and DE5 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek high quality design that respects the local distinctiveness of the local townscape character. The proposal would conflict with Policy TH8 of the Torquay Neighbourhood Plan (2019), insofar as it seeks high quality development that respects local character. In addition, the proposal would conflict with guidance contained in the Framework insofar as it seeks high quality design that respects local character.

I accept that the appellant has used an Architect to provide proper documentation, and reputable contractors are proposed to undertake the work. This has no bearing on the merits of the case.

The appellant implies that the driveway would be used to allow an electric vehicle to be charged. Whilst the provision of a private electric charging point is supported by the Framework, this gain towards the reduction of carbon emissions, is of limited weight in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.