Appeal 6003766

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terrace dwelling facing onto [address]. It is set back from the footpath behind a modest front garden area. There is a wall and trellis running along the front boundary of the site, with two tall trees behind. Other dwellings along this stretch of the road feature similar front garden arrangements or have converted these areas to driveway space.

[address] is a classified A-road and busy thoroughfare that intersects with [address] a short distance to the south-west of the appeal site. The area around the box junction is regulated by double red lines. Leading up to the junction, in front of the appeal site, is an advisory cycle lane which in turn leads to an [name] (ASL) bicycle box at the junction. Additionally, there is a bus stop and associated bus cage on the highway to the north-east. I observed on my site visit there is also a lighting column on the footpath in front of the site.

The proposal would create a new vehicular access onto [address], with a turntable within the front garden that would enable cars to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. To facilitate the access, part of the front boundary wall would be removed and replaced with driveway gates, the existing [name] tree in the front garden would be felled, and a dropped kerb would be required on the footway.

The appeal is supported by a [name] Note1 (HTN). This provides vehicle swept path analysis and a review of local accident data. It finds that vehicles turning left out of the site could stop before entering the ASL bike box 1 [name], [name]: [name] and [name], December 2025 however, in most cases, would be travelling straight through green signals at the adjacent junction. The swept path analysis also shows vehicles entering and exiting the site can do so without impeding on existing street furniture or the bus cage.

The evidence nevertheless indicates that, in situations where a car is able to turn left onto [address] while the traffic signals are red, the car would be positioned across the advisory cycle lane. Any small vehicles or bikes waiting in the ASL bike box or just behind it may result in cars exiting the site also blocking the pavement.

Alternatively, should the road be clear but the lights on red, drivers exiting the site may pull further forward to pass the pavement and advisory cycle lane, in which case they would instead be blocking part of the ASL bike box. The HTN considers these scenarios unlikely to arise, however there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate the frequency at which such obstructions would occur.

Furthermore, ensuring that vehicles entering the site do not also cause similar obstructions would be contingent on the operation of a remote-controlled opening mechanism for the vehicle gate. Should such a system not be used correctly, in sufficient time, or should it malfunction, then additional obstructions would occur.

Provided it is appropriately maintained, mechanical failure of the turntable system is likely to be rare, and there is a contingency in place for manual operation in the event of a power cut or motor issue. However, the ease at which it could be operated manually by all existing and future users is not clear. Additional effort will invariably be required in such a scenario, particularly during periods of adverse weather, which may encourage drivers to attempt reversing into the road instead.

Moreover, use of the turntable cannot reasonably or practicably be mandated, and future occupiers may not maintain it or may simply choose not to use it. Any attempt at reversing across the pavement and into the road in this location would further increase the risk of conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

Accordingly, the nature of the proposal and its position, in the context of the complexity of the road network and the level of traffic in this location, would have a harmful effect on highway safety. Notably, the Council’s Director of Transportation and Highways and Transport for London objected to the application for this reason.

I saw that there are other examples of dropped kerbs and private driveways along this stretch of [address]. However, the evidence indicates that these are historic, and in at least some cases predate the most recent development plan. While the HTN shows that no accidents have been recorded here relating to the use of existing vehicle crossovers within the last 5 years, this does not demonstrate that the addition of a further access along this route and at this point on the road would be acceptable and would not result in a greater risk of accidents.

The proposal would thus have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would conflict with Policies TR4, TR5 and TR8 of the New Local Plan Review July 2024 (the Local Plan). These policies, among other provisions, seek to resist pavement crossovers and forecourt parking, and ensure that developments improve the visual, functional and inclusive quality of streets, encourage travel by sustainable modes, and do not increase congestion. Though not referred to explicitly in the Decision Notice, the proposal would also conflict with Policy TR6 of the Local Plan, referred to in the [name]. This policy, among other provisions, states that new development must incorporate measures to improve road safety, and in particular the safety of walking and cycling. It also seeks to resist development that compromises road safety, and ensure development does not reduce access to, or the attractiveness of, existing footways and pathways used by the public.

The proposal would likewise conflict with Paragraph 116 of the Framework, which indicates that development should be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The site is located within the Sloane Stanley Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of CAs. In so far as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CA is derived from its historic origin, traditional architecture and composition.

In its [name], the Council concluded that, given the setting of neighbouring properties, the proposal would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the CA. It also found that removal of the [name] tree in the front garden would be mitigated by the presence of several other trees in the vicinity. The evidence and my own observations do not lead me to a different conclusion on these matters and, accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

I recognise that the proposal may improve the domestic comfort and liveability of the property for the appellant by creating a means of vehicular access. However, these would be purely private benefits that would be insufficient to outweigh the identified public harm and development plan conflict.

The development would conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.