Appeal 6005721

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on pedestrian and vehicular safety.

The appeal seeks to provide a proposed vehicular access, which would allow the parking of a vehicle on an area of hardstanding in front of the property that has already been installed. Parking on this space would be at an angle to the road.

Kent County Council as Highways Authority raised concerns during the course of the planning application due to restricted visibility for vehicles using the access, particularly given the angled access to the site, parked cars on the road, and the location on a bend of [address] which is a local distributor road.

Visibility splays were submitted during the course of the application. These show visibility with a distance of 43m in both directions with a setback distance of 2.4m. Part of these splays pass over the land of adjoining properties. The appellant points to those areas not currently being obscured on the adjoining land. However, there is no control over the use of adjoining land by the appellant or the Highways Authority. I saw at my site visit that along [address] there are properties with high vegetation in their front gardens, and should that occur on adjoining land within the visibility splays there would be an obstruction.

I also saw at my site visit that the proposed access is in a very constrained location: the heavy parking on the road significantly restricts visibility and, from what I have read and seen, it appears such a level of parking occurs throughout the day and evenings. [address] is a local distributor road, and the appeal site lies on a bend on this well-trafficked road. I also saw at my visit that the footway is frequently used by pedestrians. The presence of a pedestrian crossing to the west of the site does not militate against these characteristics of the site’s location as being on the inside bend of a busy road and footway, nor does the existence of other access points along the road.

The above matters regarding the location of the site and parking in the area – and the angled access onto the property and consequential need to manoeuvre on/off the site – mean that clear visibility is essential to ensure the safety of vehicles and pedestrians. The shortfall in visibility would, when combined with the particular circumstances of the location of this site and the proposed parking and access arrangements, fail to ensure highway safety would be retained. This would lead to an unacceptable impact on pedestrian and vehicular safety, which would be contrary to paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires applications for planning permission to ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. As there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, the proposal would also conflict with paragraph 116 of the Framework. The appeal is therefore dismissed.