Vehicle crossover (dropped kerb)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by Louise Phillips MA (Cantab) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y5420/D/18/3194941 118 Great Cambridge Road, Tottenham, Haringey N17 8LT  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 Krenar Ismailaj against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Haringey.  The application Ref HGY/2017/3074, dated 7 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2017.  The development proposed is a vehicle crossover (dropped kerb). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the safety of road users. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a terraced house on the eastern side of the A10 Great Cambridge Road. The proposed development is to create a vehicle crossover/dropped kerb to provide access from the road to the hardstanding within the front garden area. The garden area is not sufficiently large to allow on-site turning and so vehicles would either enter or leave in reverse gear. 4. This stretch of the Great Cambridge Road forms part of the Transport for London Road Network managed by Transport for London (TfL). It is a dual carriageway on a red route where no stopping is permitted. The eastern side outside the appeal property is two lanes wide plus a bus lane; and parking bays are marked parallel to the kerb. 5. At the time of my site visit at approximately 2pm, the road was very busy with traffic and I observed several pedestrians using the pavement. The traffic was fast-moving, notwithstanding the presence of a bus stop and signal controlled junction nearby. TfL object to the proposal on the basis that the inability of vehicles to both enter and leave the site in forward gear would compromise the safety of road users. Having observed the road conditions described above, I agree with TfL. 6. The appellant makes some generally valid points about the advantages of driveway parking over parallel parking in respect of ease, speed and the view Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/D/18/3194941 2 available to the driver when entering the carriageway in forward gear. However, this is simply not a road that vehicles should reverse onto and, whatever the appellant’s own intentions, such an occurrence is not preventable. Drivers reversing onto the road would not have a clear view of oncoming traffic, particularly if cars were parked in the kerbside bays, and approaching drivers might not have sufficient time to stop. Whilst I understand that front garden parking does occur in the absence of dropped kerbs both at the appeal site and elsewhere, this is no good reason to sanction a dangerous practice. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be detrimental to the safety of road users. Thus it would be contrary to Policy DM33 of the Haringey Development Management DPD 2017, which seeks to prevent new crossovers which would reduce pedestrian or highway safety. Other Matters 7. The availability of driveway parking would clearly benefit the appellant who regularly finds it difficult to park near to his home. This presents difficulties in relation to transporting his children and unloading work equipment and it is stated that the vehicle containing his tools was once stolen when parked far from home. These concerns are significant, but they do not clearly distinguish the requirements of the appellant from those of near neighbours. In light of my findings in respect of road safety, the provision of driveway parking is not something which should be generally permitted in this location. Consequently, the appellant’s personal circumstances do not outweigh my conclusion above. Conclusion 8. I have found that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan in respect of its effect upon the safety of road users. None of the other matters raised is sufficient to outweigh this conflict and so I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Louise Phillips INSPECTOR