Described as, To remove wall to front garden. To create new tarmac area for parking. To drop kerb to allow access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 January 2018 by G P Jones BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 10th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/17/3188816 72 Callington Road, Brislington, Bristol BS4 5BP  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 Steven Adams against the decision of Bristol City Council.  The application Ref 17/03165/H, dated 6 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 September 2017.  The development proposed is described as, To remove wall to front garden. To create new tarmac area for parking. To drop kerb to allow access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the following: To remove wall to front garden. To create new tarmac area for parking. To drop kerb to allow access at 72 Callington Road, Brislington, Bristol BS4 5BP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/03165/H, dated 6 June 2017, and the plans submitted with it and subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. Main Issue 1. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety. Reasons 2. The appeal property is part of a group of terraced dwellings that lie on the northern side of Callington Road. The front garden of the appeal property slopes down slightly from its junction with the pavement towards the front elevation of the dwelling. Callington Road is a busy A road with two lanes east bound heading towards the junction with West Town Lane and a single lane west bound. The road has a 30 mph speed limit in the vicinity of the appeal site. During my site visit I observed that this road was quite heavily trafficked, although there were also gaps in the traffic at times. 3. There are a number of other properties on both sides of Callington Road that have dropped kerbs and off-road car parking on their respective front garden areas. The appellant contends that there are 56 dwellings with such driveways that lie between the appeal property and the junction with West Town Lane, and I have no reason to doubt this figure. This includes the nearby properties of nos. 62, 64, 66 and 78. On my site visit I observed that these front parking areas differ in size with some being more spacious than the appeal site, whilst others are similar or smaller in size than the appeal proposal. For example, the Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/17/3188816 2 front garden area for no. 80 is laid to grass with quite a narrow driveway on which a car would not have space to turn around, and thus would in all likelihood have to reverse out on to the road. 4. The appellant has provided a swept path analysis, drawing reference 1409-001, which demonstrates that it is possible, albeit with a degree of manoeuvring, to turn around a medium sized car within the 6m wide curtilage of the front garden in order that a car can both enter the proposed tarmac parking area and exit in a forward gear. However, such a manoeuvre would not be possible if any more than one vehicle were to be parked on the site. 5. The Council has cited two traffic incidents but has not provided specific details. However, the appellant contends that neither of these accidents related to the residents of the dwellings along this stretch of road manoeuvring from their existing front parking areas on to the main road. I have no reason to doubt this and neither do I doubt that the occupants of the appeal property would exercise a similar degree of caution when exiting on to and off this road. Despite a number of dwellings along this stretch of the road already having a similar parking arrangement to that proposed by the appellant, I have not been presented with any resulting substantive evidence of a particularly high accident rate. Furthermore, the visibility in both directions at the junction of the appeal property and Callington Road is good, as evidenced in the submitted report by Accident Analysis, and this road, although busy, has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. 6. As such it is my view that the proposal, either alone or in combination with the other existing driveways, would not give rise to a significant detrimental impact on highway safety. In reaching my decision I have had regard to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. 7. Consequently I consider that the proposal would accord with the guidance contained within the Framework and with Policy DM23 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, adopted July 2014 which, among other matters, seek to ensure that development proposals provide safe and adequate access onto the highway network and do not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions. Conditions 8. Apart from accordance with the submitted plans, the Council does not regard any additional planning conditions as necessary. Consequently, I propose only to impose the standard condition which provides a timescale for the commencement of the development. Conclusion 9. Therefore for the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised including other relevant development plan policies, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. GP Jones INSPECTOR