Appeal 6007511

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issue for which is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with specific regard to visibility.

The appeal property is a mid-terraced dwelling situated on a classified road (A649). This is identified as a strategic route, carrying a steady volume of traffic, including bus services. The site lies on a noticeable bend in the road and in close proximity to the junction with [address]. The frontage is enclosed by a stone boundary wall that fronts the highway, and a large mature protected Elm tree is positioned on the front boundary. The tree is on raised ground relative to both the footpath and the lower lying front garden area. The wider street scene is characterised by varied house types, set back from the road behind consistent stone walls.

The proposal seeks to introduce a new vehicular crossover and driveway to enable off-street parking for up to two vehicles within the front garden. Wheel‐tracking diagrams demonstrate vehicles could enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

That said, and during my site visit which was carried out at lunchtime on a weekday, traffic movements along this section of the road were frequent and continuous. This situation is likely magnified during peak hours. Given the bend in the road, the presence and height of the remaining boundary walls either side of the vehicle egress point, and the positioning of the protected tree, visibility along the highway would be restricted, particularly when viewing from the appeal site towards oncoming traffic. The limited splays shown would extend over third‐party land which appears to be outside of the appellant’s control. They cannot therefore be relied upon to ensure long‐term visibility.

Restrictions of such to this extent would lead to either exiting vehicles temporarily having to block the footway for the driver to be able to have a sufficiently wide field of vision to enter the carriageway safely, or force one to enter the carriageway without being able to see sufficiently well. This would be an unacceptable inconvenience for pedestrians and potentially dangerous for other road users respectively. The latter specifically heightening the possibility of vehicular conflict.

Consequently, the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety. This would be contrary to Policy BT4 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 (2023) which sets out that development should provide safe and efficient access for all highway users. It would also not satisfy the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, which explains, amongst other things, that development should be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

During my site visit, both vehicles were parked off‐street within the front garden, accessed via a neighbouring driveway, presumably with the landowner’s permission. Even if future parking arrangements were to change, any perceived benefit of ‘removing’ on street parked vehicles would be speculative and insufficient to outweigh the identified harm arising from the formation of an unsafe access onto a classified road and strategic route.

I acknowledge the sustainability benefits associated with the provision of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. However, no firm proposals for the installation of such form part of the appeal scheme. I could not further insist on a future occupant owning an electric vehicle. In any case, the desirability for EV infrastructure does not override the requirement for development to provide safe and suitable access to the highway.

The cited examples appear to be longstanding or historic features of the street, potentially implemented under different policy regimes or highway safety standards. If indeed they benefit from planning permission. Similarly, unimplemented and subsequently lapsed permissions do not establish a fallback position or confer any entitlement to carry out the development now proposed. Highway conditions, traffic levels, policy requirements and site circumstances may have materially changed since that time. [name] have had regard to the letter of support from the neighbour and the concerns raised, it has not altered the considerations which have informed my recommendation.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.