To drop the shared western boundary wall to 900mm high and a footway crossing/dropped kerb to allow vehicular access to the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 October 2017 by Andrew Owen BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/D/17/3182026 24 Hernstone Lane, Peak Forest SK17 8EJ  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 Richard Scott against the decision of Peak District National Park Authority.  The application Ref NP/HPK/0517/0475, dated 7 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 July 2017.  The development proposed is to drop the shared western boundary wall to 900mm high and a footway crossing/dropped kerb to allow vehicular access to the property. Decision 1. The part of the appeal that relates to the footway crossing/dropped kerb is dismissed. 2. The part of the appeal that relates to the boundary wall is allowed and planning permission is granted to drop the shared western boundary wall to 900mm high at 24 Hernstone Lane, Peak Forest SK17 8EJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref NP/HPK/0517/0475, dated 7 May 2017 subject to the following condition: 1) The works to the boundary wall hereby permitted shall accord with the following approved plans: Site Location plan at 1:1250, roadside front elevation proposed, and plan – proposed at 1:100. Preliminary Matter 3. At the time of my site visit the wall on the western boundary appeared to have already been reduced in height to around 900mm in height. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety. Reasons 5. Hernstone Road is a busy road through the Peak District, and the part of it near the appeal site is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The proposal seeks to drop the kerb for a length of around eight metres in front of the parking area to the side of the dwelling. There is room on the parking area for at least two cars. 6. The visibility splay to the right is shown on the plans as being 2.4 metres x 22 metres. However the western boundary wall has already been reduced in Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/17/3182026 2 height, and I consider it would be possible to see over it, for a distance in excess of 22 metres, when in a car seeking to exit the appeal site. Hence visibility in this direction appears acceptable, and indeed the Authority do not refer to this in their reason for refusal. 7. Visibility to the left is restricted by the corner of the dwelling on the site. The plans show a splay of 2.4 metres x 14 metres, from a point in the middle of the parking area, which the Authority state is sub-standard. However due to the bend in the road, only a small slither of the nearside carriageway would not be visible from this point. Therefore from here, or from the parts of the parking area nearest the western boundary wall, visibility to the left is likely to be satisfactory. Nonetheless, from the parts of the parking area nearest the dwelling, visibility to the left appears poor. As the dropped kerb would extend along the whole width of the parking area it is possible that vehicles could park in positions on the parking area where visibility would be insufficient. Accordingly, although I accept few traffic movements would be generated by the dwelling, the failure of the development to provide sufficient visibility to a busy road could result in manoeuvres which would be unsafe. 8. Moreover it would be likely that any vehicles parking here would either need to reverse out into the road, or stop on the road and reverse back onto the parking area. Without any plans to show that vehicles could turn within the site so that they could enter and leave in a forward gear, I can only conclude that such reversing manoeuvres would occur and these would also be likely to adversely affect highway safety. 9. I note that other properties nearby have poor access arrangements, most notably at No 26. Nonetheless this should not justify a development which would also fail to provide safe access. I also recognise that there are no other parking options on site. However there is some room for parking a short distance further east along Hernstone Lane that is safe. Brief reference is made to the accident record near the site, but without further details of this I can give little weight to this consideration. 10. In summary, the proposed dropped kerb could lead to vehicle movements that would prejudice highway safety. Therefore this part of the proposal would be contrary to Policy LT18 of the Local Plan (LP) and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework which both require development to provide safe access arrangements. 11. The Authority does not object to the effect of the development as a whole on the character and appearance of the Peak Forest Conservation Area, and in light of the limited scale of the proposal, I concur that there would be no harmful effect. I accept that the lack of a dropped kerb may make the dwelling less appealing to some prospective occupiers, but the house appears to be in good condition and so, even if vacant, I would not consider it would harm the character or appearance of the conservation area. As such the development would accord with LP Policy LC5 and Policy L3 of the Core Strategy (CS) which aims to ensure the character and appearance of conservation areas is preserved. Nevertheless, this does not outweigh the failure of the dropped kerb to maintain highway safety. 12. Turning to the reduction in the height of the western boundary wall specifically, the Authority raise no objection to this work and, due to its limited visual impact in the street scene, I have no reason to arrive at a different view. As Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/17/3182026 3 such this part of the proposal accords with LP Policy LC4 and Policy GSP3 of the CS which both aim to protect the character of the area. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all other considerations, I conclude that, in relation to the dropped kerb, the appeal should be dismissed. 14. However the work to the boundary wall is a distinct development which I am able to consider separately, and therefore with respect to that part of the proposal, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and planning permission granted subject to a condition specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR