Vehicle access for off- street parking with partly block paving

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 April 2018 by Julie Dale Clark BA (Hons) MCD DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3193446 47 Eversley Park Road, Southgate N21 1JJ  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 Murat Aydemir against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref 17/03558/FUL, dated 7 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 October 2017.  The development proposed is vehicle access for off- street parking with partly block paving. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached house on the corner of Eversley Park Road and Holly Hill and I note that it has an existing vehicular access off Holly Hill. There is street furniture close to the junction, namely a street sign and a post box. At the time of my site visit it was a fairly busy road and it is a bus route. 4. Policy DMD 461 sets out criteria for vehicle crossovers and dropped kerbs. It states that planning permission for new access onto ‘A’ roads and other busy classified roads will not normally be permitted. Eversley Park Road is not an ‘A’ classified road and although it is a busy road and a bus route I have no evidence to confirm that it falls within the definition set out in Policy DMD 46 in relation to the number of vehicles using the road. 5. However, the policy further sets out criteria where vehicle crossovers and dropped kerbs that allow for off-street parking and access onto roads will be permitted. These include where there is no adverse impact on road safety; there is no adverse impact on the free flow and safety of traffic on the adjoining 1 Enfield Council Development Management Document (DMD), Adopted November 2014. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3193446 2 highway and in particular on the effective movement of bus services; vehicles can enter / and exit the crossover in forward gear; and it has been shown that there is no alternative opportunities for safe access to the property (for example to the rear or side). 6. I have considered the appellant’s personal requirements for requiring parking provision in front of the house rather than to the rear off Holly Hill but given that the proposed vehicular access would be close to the junction of Eversley Park Road and Holly Hill, this does not justify allowing a potentially dangerous arrangement. I consider that given the proximity of the proposed access to the junction, vehicles manoeuvring in this location could have a harmful effect on highway and pedestrian safety. This would conflict with Policy DMD 46. 7. I have considered the Council’s technical standards for footway crossovers2 , Core Strategy policies 24 and 30 and the National Planning Policy Framework3. I have also considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway and pedestrian safety. It would conflict with Policy DMD 46 and therefore the appeal fails. J D Clark INSPECTOR 2 Enfield Council Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (excluding Heavy Duty Crossovers), April 2013. 3 Department for Communities and Local Government National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012.