Installation of crossover to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2018 by L Fleming BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:13 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/17/3187191 186 West End Road, Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 6DU  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 Alan Rogers against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 32747/APP/2017/2163, dated 10 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2017.  The development proposed is installation of crossover to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the:  flow of traffic and highway safety;  character and appearance of the area. Reasons Highway safety 3. The appeal dwelling sits on the corner of West End Road and Herlwyn Avenue. The proposed development would involve the installation of a dropped kerb to provide a vehicle cross over to allow the use of the front garden for parking. 4. I acknowledge the front gardens of other properties nearby are being used for off-street parking. I note this section of West End Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit, is relatively straight and acceptable levels of visibility would be achieved at the proposed point of access. 5. However, whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s assurances, on the basis of the evidence before me the proposed parking space looks relatively small and constrained such that I am not convinced that a vehicle using it would be able to conveniently enter and leave it in a forward gear. 6. Thus, to use the proposed parking space vehicles would be highly likely to reverse into or from a relatively busy road directly adjacent to the junction of West End Road and Herlwyn Avenue. This manoeuvre would be undertaken at low speed such that any vehicle approaching from the south east on West End Road would have a restricted view of the road ahead. Such a vehicle may Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/17/3187191 2 swerve around a reversing vehicle to avoid slowing down thus increasing the risk of collisions with vehicles turning right from West End Road into Herlwyn Avenue and vehicles turning right out of Herlwyn Avenue onto West End Road. Furthermore, there is a bus stop in front of the proposed parking space on the opposite side of West End Road such that waiting buses would further impinge driver’s views and there would also be a risk of vehicles overtaking a waiting bus and failing to notice a vehicle reversing out of or into the proposed parking space. 7. Whilst I find any delays to pedestrians or vehicles would be minimal such that the proposal would have negligible effect on the flow of highway users, I find the significant increase in the risk of vehicle collisions as a result of the proposal would be harmful to highway safety in the area. 8. In reaching these conclusions, I have fully considered the appellant’s personal circumstances and the need to access a vehicle within the plot boundaries. I have also noted that there is a high demand for on-street parking in the area making it difficult to find a space close to the appellant’s property. I also note the proposal would mean vehicles would not park close to a junction. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified. 9. I have also considered the example of a vehicle cross over on a corner plot nearby. However, the full details of that case are not before me. In any event other forms of similar development are not sufficient to justify a proposal which on its own planning merits I have found would harm highway safety in the area. 10. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with Policy AM7 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (2012) (UDP) and the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement Supplementary Planning Document : Residential Extensions (2008) (HDAS), which taken together seek to maintain a safe and sustainable highway and transport network. Character and appearance 11. The appeal property is a two storey dwelling in a residential area characterised by dwellings of a variety of styles set back from the road behind front gardens and or off-street parking. Thus the area has a varied character and appearance. 12. Although the proposal would result in the loss of some garden planting, the plans show spaces for planting around the proposed parking space. Furthermore, only a relatively small section of the existing boundary wall would be removed and overall the proposed off-street parking would not appear out of place in a street scene where off-street parking on front gardens is a characteristic of the area. 13. Thus the proposal would not harm the varied character and appearance of the area and in this regard would accord with saved Policies BE13, BE19 and BE38 of the UDP and the HDAS. These policies, taken together, seek to ensure good design and that new development makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of an area. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/17/3187191 3 Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above and having had regard to all other matters raised, on balance the proposed development would not accord with the development plan and thus the appeal should be dismissed. L Fleming INSPECTOR