Appeal 6004411

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the highway, including but not limited to a street tree.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey terraced dwelling at [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ), occupying a corner plot at the junction of [site address] and [address] (the junction). A church lies on the opposite corner. Otherwise, this stretch of [site address] is generally characterised by rows of similar two-storey terraced dwellings. Both streets are tree-lined with footways on both sides, with dwellings set back behind similarly sized front gardens, many of which incorporate off-street parking spaces accessed via dropped kerbs. [site address] is a well-trafficked route, including by buses. Double yellow lines are present around the junction, although there are no parking restrictions along most of either street. At the time of my site visit, there was a presence of vehicles parked along the roadside, many of which straddled the carriageway.

Although the proposed parking space would meet the minimum dimensions set out in the Council’s Redbridge Policy for Footway Crossings1 (PFC), the arrangement would necessitate vehicles to reverse into or out of the site. As a result, drivers would not have optimum visibility when reversing from the site, or in the alternative would be required to reverse into the site with the potential to inconvenience other road users. Reversing out of the site would also be likely to require vehicles to encroach significantly into the highway in order to avoid the street tree. Given the site’s close proximity to the junction and the traffic levels of [site address] , this would likely impede the free flow of traffic.

The PFC diagrams indicate that visibility splays are required on either side of a crossing. On this basis, the adjacent street tree would likely fall within the minimum 0.6 metre clearance required between the centre of the tree and the edge of the 1 Effective from 1st April 2023. Updated 26 April 2024. crossing. Notwithstanding the low traffic speeds and limited movements associated with a single dwelling, the close proximity of the tree, together with the nearby lamp post, would further restrict views for drivers exiting the site. Given these factors, the proposed development has the potential to pose a risk to highway safety, including for pedestrians and other road users.

Although the existing kerb appears relatively level, rebuilding and strengthening works may nonetheless be required to form the dropped kerb. Even if not, the close proximity of the proposed access to the street tree raises a risk of damage, including through soil compaction, particularly if vehicles seek to maximise space when reversing.

No technical evidence has been submitted, such as plans demonstrating visibility splays, swept-path analysis, kerb construction details or a tree survey or constraints plan, to show that the proposed access would operate safely or avoid harm to the street tree, including future pressure for its removal. In the absence of such information, I am not satisfied that the identified risk of harm would be mitigated and given the uncertainty it would not be appropriate to address these matters by

While there are other dropped kerbs along the street, some of which are located close to street trees or street furniture, I have no details of their planning history or whether they were approved in accordance with current policy and guidance. The appeal must therefore be determined on its own merits, and these examples do not justify the proposal.

I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in a harmful effect on the highway, including a street tree. As such, it conflicts with Policies LP26 and LP38 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (2018) (LP) and Policies T2 and G7 of The London Plan insofar as they require development to improve movement through places, to integrate and retain existing trees where these can make a positive contribution and to wherever possible retain existing trees of value.

While the Council’s decision refers to Policy LP22 of the LP, that policy relates to promoting sustainable transport and is not directly relevant to an application for a dropped kerb.

The Council raises no concerns in respect to the loss of soft landscaping within the front garden of No [site address] or the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I also acknowledge that No [site address] does not benefit from off-street parking and the appellant’s intention to provide additional soft landscaping. However, these matters do not overcome the identified harm, nor do they alter my overall conclusion in relation to the main issue.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.