Appeal 6005137

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the planning application form includes matters that are not an act of development. The council’s description on the decision notice is more concise and precise, and I have used it in the banner above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed access on highway safety in relation to pedestrians and drivers using [address].

The appeal property is a detached dwelling on the southern side of [address] and includes a narrow strip of garden to the front of the property at split levels, behind a brick boundary wall.

It is evident from the original description of development that the appellant wishes to form a vehicular access to the property by dropping approximately 6.45m of kerb stones, removing a section of the front boundary wall and providing a permeable surfaced driveway on the frontage of the property. Accurate plans drawn to a recognisable scale were not provided with the application. As such, the submissions do not satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed access could be provided with appropriate visibility splays nor sufficient space to park a vehicle clear of the highway.

Solid timber fencing and a brick wall border the site to the east and it is evident that these have potential to impede the visibility of drivers using the proposed access. Without plans demonstrating that appropriate visibility can be achieved within land controlled by the appellant, I cannot therefore be satisfied that access and egress would be safe.

There is insufficient space to turn a vehicle within the site. Drivers would have to reverse either onto or off the proposed driveway. Given the restricted visibility available when reversing, this adds significantly to my concerns of the risk of conflict with users of the footway or road. Additionally, without evidence that space to park a vehicle clear of the footway would be available, there is potential for an overhanging vehicle to present a hazard for users of the footway, particularly those with pushchairs or wheelchair users.

On the evidence before me, I conclude that use of the proposed vehicular access would cause an unacceptable highway safety risk. Policy SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2014-2034 (2021) requires new development to make provision for, amongst other things, vehicle parking. In the absence of necessary details, I am not satisfied that the proposal complies with this policy nor paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires safe and suitable access for development.

The appellant is frustrated at the council’s handling of the application. Such concerns fall outside the scope of this appeal and are a matter for the council and appellant to resolve. The appellant confirms that plans have now been prepared, but I do not have the benefit of these and must reach a decision on the submissions before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no other considerations that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.