Appeal 6009735

The appeal is dismissed.

During the appeal process, the appellant submitted a revised drawing showing an amended layout of the site frontage. However, the purpose and status of this drawing are not clear from the evidence before me. Moreover, there is no indication that the drawing has been subject to consultation with the Council or interested parties. To determine the appeal on the basis of that drawing would therefore raise concerns of procedural fairness and natural justice. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that were before the Council when it made its

The main issue is whether the proposal would provide an acceptable front-garden parking arrangement, having regard to kerbside parking and highway safety.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on the southern side of [address]. The road is residential in character and has on-street parking along both sides. I observed that vehicle crossovers are not prevalent along [address], although there are examples in the wider street, including at the adjoining property. The Council’s evidence identifies [address] as a local distributor road.

The proposal would introduce a dropped kerb and vehicular crossover to enable a vehicle to be parked within the front garden/forecourt of the dwelling. Policy Q14 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) (LLP) states that front gardens and prominent corner or side gardens are not considered appropriate for development. It permits car parking in such locations only for [name] holders where a [name] parking space cannot be accommodated on-street within an acceptable distance.

No evidence has been provided to show that the appellant is a [name] holder, or that an on-street [name] parking space could not be accommodated within an acceptable distance. The exception circumstances identified in Policy Q14 have therefore not been demonstrated. On that basis, the proposal would conflict with the development plan’s clear approach to front-garden development.

The proposal would also result in the loss of an existing length of kerbside space that is presently available for public on-street parking. I acknowledge the appellant’s argument that an off-street space would be created within the appeal site. However, the proposed crossover would remove a publicly available kerbside space from general use and convert it to access for a private driveway. Even if the appellant’s own vehicle would no longer need to park on the street, the loss of public kerbside space would reduce the flexibility and availability of on-street parking for other road users.

Based upon my observations on site and in the absence of a parking survey or other persuasive evidence to show that on-street parking demand is low, I am not satisfied that the loss of this kerbside space would be acceptable. The proposal would reduce the availability and flexibility of publicly available on-street parking and would fail to support the sustainable transport and parking objectives of the

The submitted plans also do not demonstrate that a vehicle of standard dimensions could be safely accommodated within the site without encroaching onto, or overhanging, the public footway. Nor do they demonstrate that a vehicle could turn within the site so as to enter and leave the highway in forward gear. In practice, vehicles would be likely to reverse across the footway when entering or leaving the site. Such manoeuvres would increase the risk of conflict with pedestrians, including children, older people and wheelchair users.

Policy Q15 seeks to ensure that boundary treatments flanking vehicle crossovers maintain sight lines. The Council’s evidence indicates that pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres should be shown on both sides of the access, measured along the back edge of the footway, and retained clear of obstruction above 0.9 metres. The submitted plans do not adequately demonstrate such splays within land under the appellant’s control. This adds to my concern that the proposal would be harmful to pedestrian safety.

I have had regard to the appellant’s argument that formalising the access would be safer than any existing informal parking arrangement. However, any informal or unauthorised crossing of the footway cannot justify development that has not been shown to be safe or policy compliant. The proposal must be assessed on its own merits. On the evidence before me, the access, visibility, parking and manoeuvring arrangements have not been shown to be acceptable.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not provide an acceptable front-garden parking arrangement. It would be harmful to highway safety and would result in the unacceptable loss of on-street parking. It would conflict with Policies Q14, Q15, T1 and T6 of the LLP, which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development avoids inappropriate front-garden development and harmful loss of kerbside space, supports sustainable transport objectives and protects highway safety.

Even if the proposal would accord with various development plan policies, including those in relation to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and character and appearance, the absence of harm or conflict with other relevant development plan policies is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The Council’s evidence makes reference to the [name] 2023. However, this guidance is not before me in evidence and has not been determinative in my decision.

The proposal does not accord with the development plan when considered as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.