Appeal 6004514

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of highway safety.

The proposal would involve the loss of a garage and part of a driveway serving the property, which would result in the loss of 1 parking space within the site. The Council has considered whether a reduced level of in-curtilage car parking would be appropriate, but the proposal is located on a bend opposite a junction and there are bollards on the opposite side of the road. Due to this sensitive location, the Council has concluded that further on-street parking would be harmful on highways related matters. Based on what I have seen and read I consider that the Council’s concerns about an increase in on-street parking in this location are well-founded.

The Council supports the provision of a second parking space within the site using a side-by-side arrangement. However, access to this space would require the provision of a dropped kerb to enable convenient access and to prevent damage from vehicles crossing over the footpath. There is a lamppost close to the parking space which the Highways Authority has confirmed would need to be relocated. It is these works that Condition 4 seeks to enforce.

However, the appellant has referred to the cost of the highways works, and has provided evidence that a car parked at an angle could gain access to the second space without needing a dropped kerb or affecting the lamppost. However, whilst this angled arrangement may be possible, it would be likely to involve convoluted manoeuvres for vehicles to access the site or the movement of a vehicle on the extant driveway. Therefore, for reasons of convenience, cars would be more likely to be driven directly into the parking space across the unimproved footpath, resulting in damage detrimental to the maintenance of the footpath and the safety of highway users.

Cars accessing the angled parking space would also lead to unorthodox manoeuvres to and from the appeal site. Given the sensitive location of the site in relation to the highway features mentioned previously, such manoeuvres would be likely to increase the risk of collisions with other highway users to the detriment of highway safety.

The appellant refers to tandem parking on driveways and garages which would also require the movement of a vehicle blocking another one in, and this would apply to the existing situation on the appeal site. However, the manoeuvres associated with this arrangement would not be as unorthodox as those resulting from the angled parking, and this does not lead me to a different conclusion on the harm arising from the angled parking arrangement.

Reference has also been made to reduced parking standards elsewhere on the estate, although details of these have not been provided with the appeal. It has therefore not been determined that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal with regards to the sensitivity of the highway location. In any event I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

Drawing the above together, I conclude that Condition 4 regarding a scheme of highway works is reasonable and necessary in the interests of highway safety. [name] therefore meets the safe design and highway safety requirements of Policies CS5 and DC1 of the [name] 2008. The condition also complies with the design and highway safety considerations of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant sets out that the proposal includes the provision of wheelchair access and I am mindful that the proposal would include improved ground floor accommodation including a bedroom and wetroom. They also indicate that costs arising from the required highway works may make the scheme financially unviable. In considering this appeal I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 which sets out relevant protected characteristics. However, the circumstances of the proposal do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Following careful consideration of these particular matters I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR