Appeal 6007005

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the safety and convenience of highway users.

The proposal would involve a dropped kerb to provide access to a permeable area of paving to the front of the host property. As detailed on drawing no A002 [name] (‘the site plan’), that paving would include a 2.4m x 4.8m parking space, which would be steeply angled across part of the front face of the building.

[address] is a classified road between the city centre and the eastern suburbs, which is subject to a 30mph speed limit. Whilst it represents just a snapshot in time, my observations around the middle of a weekday, were consistent with the view expressed in the Council’s delegated report that it carries a high volume of traffic. Vehicles were parked on both sides of the highway, and I have no reason to doubt that the fairly narrow pavement in front of the appeal site can be busy with pedestrians, particularly given the proximity to educational, religious and commercial premises.

The appellant says the Council’s claim that the scheme would fail to meet minimum parking bay dimensions is demonstrably wrong, as it would measure 2.4m x 4.8m which is recognised as a standard parking size in the UK.

However, given that, based on the site plan, there is at most just 4m between the front of the host building and the pavement, and less than that next to the porch, a vehicle would need to park almost parallel to the road. [name] have not been provided with swept path drawings, based on that plan, my observations, and the representation from the local highway authority, drivers attempting to park here would need to undertake awkward and onerous manoeuvres, including reversing across the pavement, and to or from the carriageway. Appeal Decision: 6007005

Those manoeuvres would be particularly difficult if vehicles were parked next to the proposed crossover on the adjacent stretch of carriageway, where they would significantly interrupt intervisibility between that driver and westbound drivers on [address].

Given the limited space available within the site, which is enclosed by boundary treatment to its sides, and the need for such awkward manoeuvres, I agree with the view expressed by the Council that there would also be a significant risk that a vehicle would be parked such that it would partially overhang the pavement, where it would present an obstacle to pedestrians.

By providing a conveniently located private parking space, the proposal would meet the needs of the disabled occupants. However, personal circumstances rarely outweigh general planning matters because the effect of the development would remain long after the personal circumstances cease to apply. The personal circumstances used to justify the development would inevitably change over time, but the identified harm would remain. This benefit to the appellant therefore carries only limited weight in the overall planning balance.

The benefit to the occupants would not outweigh the significant harm that the scheme would cause to the safety and convenience of other highway users, including vehicles on [address], and adults and children, some of whom may have disabilities or mobility issues, using the adjacent pavement.

The scheme would therefore conflict with Policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan 2006 which sets out that the needs of pedestrians and people with disabilities shall be successfully incorporated into the design, and with the broadly similar approach in Policy T03 of the emerging Leicester Local Plan 2020 to 2036, which has been approved by the Council for adoption.

It would also conflict with the stance in paragraphs 116 and 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding the creation of places that are safe, secure and attractive, and which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, and that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Finally, the scheme would not comply with the general advice on minimum standard car parking bay dimensions at DES: 16 paragraphs 55 and [address] [name] 2020.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and to rights conveyed in the Human Rights Act. However, the refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aim of ensuring that the significant harm that I have identified is avoided.

Having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore dismissed.