Removal of front fence, block paving and the lowering of the kerb to allow access and parking

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 September 2017 by Rachel Walmsley BSc MSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/P1615/D/17/3174484 4 St White’s Terrace, Cinderford, Gloucestershire GL14 3HN  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Rob Wilkins against the decision of Forest of Dean District Council.  The application Ref P1794/16/FUL, dated 21 December 2016, was refused by notice dated 29 March 2017.  The development proposed is removal of front fence, block paving and the lowering of the kerb to allow access and parking. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. This is the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility and parking. Reasons 3. The frontage to No.4 St White’s Terrace is similar to adjoining frontages, that of a front garden, bound by a wooden fence and a brick wall and raised in part to accommodate the slope of St White’s Road. The road is a busy two lane thoroughfare which is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. 4. For a driver exiting the site, a clear line of visibility is required from a point 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge and in both directions, up and down the road. The drawings before me do not demonstrate that adequate visibility could be achieved. Nevertheless, it was apparent from my observations on site that within proximity of the appeal site there are trees and shrubs within the adjoining front gardens. This vegetation, particularly when looking south, would obstruct a driver’s visibility of oncoming pedestrians and vehicles when exiting the site. This would create a risk of collision, between a vehicle exiting the site and vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists using the highway. 5. Whilst I note the appellant’s intention to remove all boundary treatments and pave and grade the site’s frontage, there is nothing within the evidence before me to show how the ground would be levelled so that a car could be parked on a flat surface. The existing step change between the pavement and the frontage to No 4 would make it difficult for a vehicle to park within the space proposed. Therefore, whilst a parking space of the dimensions required by the Appeal Decision APP/P1615/D/17/3174484 2 Council and with space to access the existing property could be achieved on the site, the shortcomings related to the change in ground levels makes the car parking space unworkable. 6. Whilst frontage parking exists in other areas along the road, precedence is not an automatic endorsement of subsequent proposals; each development must be assessed on its own merits and in relation to planning policy. When assessed against paragraphs 32 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which require development to provide a safe and suitable access that minimises highway conflict, the proposal would fail to meet this requirement. 7. I recognise the appellant’s willingness to provide an off-street car parking space to help ease current traffic problems, as demonstrated by the detailed discussions that have taken place between the Council and the appellant regarding the development proposed. However, for the reasons given the development before me would provide inadequate visibility and parking arrangements, contrary to policy. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would be contrary to the Framework and therefore the appeal is dismissed. R Walmsley INSPECTOR