Creation of 2/3 driveway to 1/3 front lawned garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 November 2017 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Y5420/D/17/3182261 103 Alexandra Park Road, London N10 2DP  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 Mrs Georgina Castle against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Haringey.  The application Ref HGY/2017/1085 was refused by notice dated 7 June 2017.  The development proposed is the creation of 2/3 driveway to 1/3 front lawned garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The appeal form states that the appeal is for a dropped kerb and construction of hardsurfacing to create vehicular access (retrospective) without the condition that was applied to the previous granted planning permission Ref: HGY/2015/0864. The relevant condition required the provision of a turntable, which has not subsequently been provided. 3. The planning application before me is not to vary a condition. The planning application was for the creation of 2/3 driveway to 1/3 front lawned garden. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on this basis and not on the basis of varying a condition. Planning Policy 4. Since the Council made its decision, Haringey’s Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013 – 2026 (March 2013 Consolidated with alterations since 2017) was adopted on 24 July 2017. Policy UD3 'General Principles' in the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 (UDP) has been saved. This policy includes the need for development proposals to demonstrate that they would not significantly affect the public and private transport networks, including highways or traffic conditions. I consider that this policy is broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework as far as it accords with the Framework’s policies with regard to highway safety and the creation of safe environments. 5. Since the Council made its decision, the Haringey London Development Management DPD was adopted on 24 July 2017. Policy DM33 does not support Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/D/17/3182261 2 a proposal for a crossover if it would result in a reduction in pedestrian or highway safety. Conservation Area 6. The appeal site lies within Muswell Hill Conservation Area. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes duties requiring special regard to be had to the desirability: at Section 72(1), of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 7. The Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 8. The development has taken place. The Council has not raised concern regarding the effect of the development on the Conservation Area. Whilst I do not have full details of the previous appearance of the area to the front of the dwelling, I note that there was crazy paving. The existing development includes hardstanding and a lawn garden area. In this built up area, due to the design and materials, I consider that the development preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Main Issues 9. I consider the main issues to be the effect of the development on pedestrian and highway safety and the free flow of traffic. Reasons 10. The appeal site lies on Alexandra Park Road, which is a classified road. There is a bus stop opposite the site in front of a row of shops and a bus stop close by on the appeal site side of the road. There is on street parking either side of this stretch of road, which has a 20mph speed limit. From my observations at my site visit, there appear to be regular comings and goings of customer vehicles to the shops opposite and this appears to be a busy classified road. 11. The development includes a narrow driveway. It would take considerable manoeuvring, and intrusion onto the front lawn, for an average size car to turn around within the site. Therefore, it is highly likely that a car would have to either reverse onto or reverse off the driveway. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (2015) recommends that the parking space should be configured such that it can be entered and subsequently exited in a forward gear. 12. There are some existing dropped kerbs in the vicinity of the appeal site. I have determined the development before me on its individual merits. Due to the comings and goings of customer vehicles to the row of shops opposite and the busy nature of this road, there is a strong possibility that vehicles reversing onto or off the front driveway at the appeal site, could adversely affect the safety of pedestrians, the safety of drivers and the free flow of traffic. 13. For the reason stated above and having taken into consideration all other matters raised upon which I have not specifically commented, I conclude that the development has an adverse effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on Alexandra Park Road. Thus, the development is contrary to UDP Policy UD3 and DPD Policy DM33 in this respect. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR