Appeal 6004476

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terrace dwelling that is located within a residential frontage and close to a pedestrian crossing on [address] (A412), a principal main distributor ‘A’ road with a 30mph speed limit, within a busy urban location. Opposite are small scale retail units that have parallel on-street parking alongside. There is no on-street parking outside the appeal site on this side of the road or on the nearest side road at [address] and although on-street parking in [address] beyond that is possible, I saw that it is in high demand.

Planning permission was granted in 1985 (ref. 85/00196/FUL) for a vehicular access at the appeal property but that permission was not implemented. The current proposal would provide parking across the whole of the frontage of the property, together with a dropped kerb and the relocation of two existing bollards on the footway.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that development should only be refused on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or where the residual cumulative impacts would be severe. It requires decision-makers to consider opportunities to improve safety, reduce conflict between road users, and enable inclusive access. Development should not be prevented where impacts can be appropriately mitigated.

The development plan includes the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 which reflects the Framework and requires that developments encourage safe walking and cycling (policy ST11.4), support the objectives of the Local Transport Plan (policy ST11.1) and set out mitigations for any adverse impacts (policy ST11.6).

Policy 5 (f) of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 2018-2031 (2018) provides more detailed advice that is relevant to this proposal and states that the county council will only consider new accesses onto main distributor roads where special circumstances can be demonstrated in favour of the proposal. Hertfordshire County Council’s Dropped Kerb Policy (Version 6, September 2025) states that proposed dropped kerbs should not affect the operation of traffic lights or a pedestrian crossing and that applications will be refused if it is considered that safety will be compromised.

The Council’s highways officer has said that there is a collision history at this location with one injury being recorded at the crossing area. I have noted that it did not involve a residential access and is only a single incident and have given this only limited weight. However, at my visit during the middle of a weekday afternoon I noted that there was a steady flow of traffic along the road and frequent use of the pedestrian crossing. This supports the highways officer’s comment that it is a traffic sensitive road. The signalised pedestrian crossing lies some 6m from the application site. The proposed dropped kerb would be within the zig zag markings which extend along the carriageway in front of the property.

The appellant’s drawings submitted with the application show that there would be adequate visibility in both directions when emerging from the drive and this has not been disputed by the Council. [address] is generally straight at this point and at my visit I noted that visibility was good. The appellant has pointed out that the zig zag markings prevent stopping and parking but do not prevent lawful access movements and considers that the proposal would enable only infrequent ingress and egress to a single dwelling and would not involve stopping or waiting within the markings. However, given the steady traffic flows and frequent use of the crossing that I noted at my visit, it is likely that when the road is busy vehicles would spend some time waiting on the footway before they were able to join the carriageway, whether emerging in a forwards or reversing movement. That would cause an obstruction on the footway and a significant danger to the safety of pedestrians who may be tempted to step onto the carriageway when trying to reach the crossing.

The proposal would allow for the parking of two vehicles. If there were already a parked vehicle at the property, a second vehicle would be required to reverse out and larger vehicles would also have to reverse out. Whilst the Council’s guidance does not require that new accesses on roads with a speed limit of 30mph provide on-site turning, in this case given the busy nature of the road and proximity of the crossing, there would be significant harm caused by vehicles reversing onto the main carriageway. This would result in vehicles overhanging the crossing which would affect its safe operation and present a danger to both pedestrians and other road users. Drivers travelling along the road in a northerly direction would be focussed on the crossing and the zig zag markings and as this would be the first access encountered for some 70m or so, would not be expecting vehicles to emerge at this point. That would present a significant danger to those drivers.

Whilst the appellant also maintains that the guidance in the Dropped Kerb Policy referred to earlier does not impose a blanket ban on accesses within zig zag lines, it clearly states that proposed dropped kerbs should not affect the operation of traffic lights or a pedestrian crossing and that applications will be refused if it is considered that safety will be compromised. I have found that would be the case here.

The proposal would also involve the relocation of two bollards from the kerb edge to the centre of the footway. I have noted that there are similar bollards in the surrounding area which the highways officer has said were part of a wider safety scheme to prevent unauthorised access over the footway to gain entry to property frontages and footway parking. However, the proposed central positioning would present a greater and significant obstacle for pedestrians and vulnerable footway users to navigate because it would obstruct the centre of their route rather than the periphery. As such, the relocation of those bollards would result in a significant danger to their safety.

I saw at my visit that there are other dropped kerbs and/or forecourt parking at other residential properties in the frontage but those without dropped kerbs are likely to be unauthorised and I have no details regarding when or whether other accesses have been approved. In any case there are none in such proximity to the crossing and the existing accesses do not provide justification for the harm that would be caused here.

The appellant has provided some details that she considers demonstrate special personal circumstances. [name] have some sympathy with her position and saw at my visit the difficulties in parking in the surrounding area, I have not been provided with any detailed medical or other supporting evidence that would indicate a sufficiently compelling need for an access in this location. In any case and even if that had been provided, from what I have seen, any personal need for on-site parking would not carry sufficient weight to outweigh the significant wider harm to highway safety that would be caused by this proposal.

I conclude then that the proposal, by reason of its proximity to the pedestrian crossing and its siting adjacent to a main distributor road, would result in significant harm to highway safety. As such, it would be contrary to the development plan policies referred to earlier and to the Framework.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed.