Formation of vehicular access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2018 by Kenneth Stone BSc Hons DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2260/D/18/3195097 68 Albion Road, Broadstairs CT10 2UR  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 Joe Giles against the decision of Thanet District Council.  The application Ref FH/TH/17/1306, dated 16 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 November 2017.  The development proposed is the formation of vehicular access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The description of development is taken from the Council’s decision notice. This more accurately and concisely identifies the development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the use of the proposed access on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers using Albion Road. Reasons 4. Albion Road is designated as the B2053 and is a well trafficked route. Parking is restricted by virtue of double yellow lines on the south side of the road, but there are no parking restrictions on the north side of the road close to the appeal site. 5. The appeal site is one half of a pair of semi-detached Victorian houses in a road of closely spaced detached and semi-detached houses of Victorian or Edwardian age. The properties have shallow front gardens enclosed by low boundary walls in the most part. The appeal site is an exception in that its garden depth is greater than those surrounding and it is enclosed by a mature hedge. 6. There are limited examples of properties with front garden parking, the closest being at 88 and 84 Albion Road, which were to the west, beyond a bend in the road and towards a commercial part of the street. 7. The depth of the garden would barely enable the laying out of a suitably sized parking space and would give insufficient space to accommodate suitable visibility splays. The positioning of the proposed parking space close to the Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/D/18/3195097 2 western boundary would mean that there would be no space to provide a visibility splay to the west and the angled front boundary would preclude a visibility splay being provided to the east. The footpath across the front of the property is limited in depth, at 1.6m, resulting in pedestrians passing the frontage in close proximity to the boundary of this and the adjoining properties. 8. The road outside the appeal site was heavily parked at the time of my visit and I see no reason to expect that this would not be the normal situation. A car emerging from the appeal site would do so between parked cars and on the side of the road where traffic was approaching from round a bend in the road and on the same side of the road. In my view this would be an unsafe arrangement for pedestrians, car drivers and other road users (including cyclists). 9. For the reasons given above I conclude that the use of the proposed access would result in material harm to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers using Albion Road. Consequently the proposal would conflict with policy D1 of the Thanet Local Plan 2006, which, amongst other matters, requires new development to provide safe and satisfactory means of pedestrian and, where provided, vehicle access (part J). This is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which advises decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be provided for all people, paragraph 32. Other matters 10. The provision of a suitable dropped kerb would prevent the adjacent road space being used for parking and therefore to accommodate adequate space would most likely result in the loss of on road kerb space that could provide parking. This is a minor negative consequence of the development. 11. The appellant has contended that on-site parking is required for family reasons however I have been provided with no evidence of this requirement. Furthermore planning operates on the basis of public benefit and these matters are related to the private interest of the current occupant, who may change at any time. 12. The appellant has also drawn attention to two previous approvals on the site in 2009 and 2012 for a similar form of development. These permissions have however expired and are not implementable. I have no history or background related to the decisions and the justification on which they may have been based. 13. The fact previous permissions, which can no longer be implemented, existed on the site or the personal circumstances of the appellant do not outweigh the harm that I have identified to highway safety above. Overall conclusions 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Kenneth Stone INSPECTOR