Vehicular Crossover

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 April 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T2215/D/18/3195799 13 Shepherds Lane, DARTFORD, Kent, DA1 2NL  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 Scott Stanton against the decision of Dartford Borough Council.  The application Ref. DA/17/01744/FUL, dated 7 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 November 2017.  The development proposed is Vehicular Crossover. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. There is a concurrent appeal1 for a vehicular crossover to the neighbouring property, 11 Shepherds Lane, and this is the subject of a separate decision. However, a joint transport statement has been submitted by the appellants as the supporting case is applicable to both sites. I have therefore assessed these appeals individually and together. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on pedestrian safety, and on the safety, convenience and efficient operation of the highway network. Reasons 4. The appeal property is an end-terraced dwelling which fronts onto the A2018, a busy strategic road. The majority of dwellings along this stretch of the road do not have on-site parking. As such, time-controlled permit holder parking bays line the eastern side of the road in front of the terrace that includes 11 and 13 Shepherds Lane (Nos. 11 and 13). There are vehicular crossovers serving dwellings to the south and north of the terrace, but also further permit parking. 5. On the opposite side of the road there is a bus stop bay, double yellow lines, and restrictions around the entrance to a school. Whilst Shepherds Lane has two lanes clear of the permit bays, when the bus stop bay is occupied it is effectively reduced to single lane at the point where the bus stop and parking spaces overlap (in front of Nos. 11 and 13). The appellant has provided photographic and survey information outlining the queuing and congestion that 1 Ref. APP/T2215/D/18/3195802 Appeal Decision APP/T2215/D/18/3195799 2 this causes at peak times and around events associated with the school and performing arts centre. 6. The frontage of 13 Shepherds Lane is paved and, subject to the reduction in the height of the boundary pier and fence between Nos. 13 and 15, visibility would be clear in both directions for vehicles leaving the site. The reduction in height could be the subject of a planning condition. The appellant and Council have provided different dimensions for the depth of the site frontage and the proposed parking space. Taking the appellant’s more generous figure, it is still below the 4.8m depth sought by the Council and set out in the Manual for Streets (MfS). Whilst I note the appellant’s view that the depth of parking bay may be reduced to 4.2m if a space is wider than 2.4m, my assessment of paragraphs 8.3.49 to 8.3.52 of the MfS is that this applies to perpendicular and echelon on-street parking, and that a wider space may reduce the distance required for manoeuvring into the space depending on the angle of approach. 7. I note the appellant’s view that the proposal would also meet the criteria of Kent County Council crossing guidance, but the depth of the space would be less than the minimum sought for an on-site space in that guidance. Moreover, whilst I accept the available space is deeper than 4.2m, applying the appellant’s data for vehicle sizes set out in appendix J, all 14 of the cars listed are longer, and this brings into question the suitability of a 4.2m long space for modern vehicles. 8. I have taken into account the safety benefits for pedestrians using an on-site rather than on-street parking space. However, safety measures could prevent children leaving a car in a permit bay via the road. Safe driving practice would prevent drivers and other passengers opening car doors into the path of cyclists and other road users. I note the support from the headmaster of the school opposite the site, and a neighbouring resident, but the removal of this and the neighbouring bay would not avoid on-street parking in remaining bays, and on the single yellow lines outside of the restricted times. The MfS notes that an arrangement of discrete parking bays adjacent to the running lanes is often the preferred way of providing on-street parking, and that it has little effect on passing traffic and minimises obstructions to the view of pedestrians crossing the street. Although there is no formal pedestrian crossing along Shepherds Lane to the school, there are pedestrian refuges around the nearby road junctions. 9. The appellant has provided photographs and car size data to indicate that a vehicle parked on the appeal site would not overhang the footway. It is the appellant’s intention to park one vehicle on the site, and if needed this could be obliquely positioned to ensure that no obstruction of the footway would arise. However, the submitted plans suggest that the proposed vehicular crossover would extend for the full width of the site frontage. If permission were granted there would be no reasonable control that could prevent future occupants of the property from parking two vehicles side by side on the frontage. At a stated 4.9m frontage width between the boundary and pier, this would be feasible, but would increase the potential for vehicles to overhang the footway. 10. Given the evident parking pressure in Shepherds Lane and the surrounding roads, I consider such use of the frontage for two vehicles, even if on a temporary basis for visitor parking, to be a realistic prospect. Whilst I note the car size data supplied by the appellant, there are domestic cars which are Appeal Decision APP/T2215/D/18/3195799 3 longer than the models quoted. I also note the appellant’s assessment regarding the space on the footway that would be left even were a vehicle to overhang. However, the purpose of the footway is for pedestrian use, and the proposal would introduce the potential for unnecessary obstructions to its intended use. Although the appellant advises that a pedestrian would clearly see an overhanging vehicle as they are walking along the footway, this does not take into account users with impaired vision. 11. Given the width of the footway, I find that the potential obstruction of the highway from overhanging vehicles would create material risk to its safe use by pedestrians and other users. This would be exacerbated by the manoeuvring of vehicles on the footway and road in order to gain access to and egress from the site. These effects have the potential to be significant given the high footfall associated with the school. 12. However, balanced against this harm, I accept that there are times when the congestion caused by the ‘pinch point’ between the permit parking and the bus stop bay would undermine traffic conditions, and that pedestrians would cross the road between vehicles in the permit bays. However, as noted above, the removal of this and the neighbouring bay would not remove on-street parking. The appellant refers to personal injury collisions, but limited information has been supplied of their circumstances. In any case, the numbers do not demonstrate that the current arrangements cause undue hazards. Balancing the various safety benefits presented by the appellant as a whole, I am not persuaded that they would outweigh the potential risks arising from the appeal proposal. I share the appellant’s view that the submitted traffic data confirms that the proposed accesses would not be detrimental to safety on the road itself, but this does not resolve the potential impacts on the use of the footway. 13. The appellant has drawn attention to other vehicular crossovers along Shepherds Lane, although no evidence is supplied to support his assertion that they have not caused accidents. However, from my observations at the site visit, some of the parking spaces appeared to be deeper than proposed in this case. The parties have not provided full details of any permissions granted along Shepherds Lane; I do not have full details of the arguments made in favour of those developments and the rationale for the decisions. The same applies to the appeal granted at 1 Dartford Road, for which only some information has been provided. I viewed these accesses at the site visit, but the presence of other sub-standard accesses in the vicinity does not warrant acceptance of a development that would create its own risks. 14. The appellant advises that a parking permit would be relinquished if the crossover were allowed, but there are no details of the mechanism to secure this, and in any event it is not a matter which could be controlled by a planning condition. I have therefore given this factor limited weight. 15. Reference is made to considerable unauthorised parking within permit bays and restricted areas of the road. However, there are processes available to address traffic enforcement, and although the removal of two parking bays may reduce incidence outside of Nos. 11 and 13 it would not materially address such problems along the remainder of the road. I do not doubt the frustration and inconvenience caused by unauthorised use of the permit bays, but this would not justify provision of alternative sub-standard parking. Appeal Decision APP/T2215/D/18/3195799 4 16. Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that plans and decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people, and this is reflected in Policy DP4 2(a) of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 (DPP). I do not find that this safety requirement is outweighed by DPP Policy DP3 and the reference in paragraph 32 of the Framework, that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual impacts of development are severe, as these both relate to transport impacts, as opposed to detailed safety matters. 17. I therefore conclude that the proposal has the potential to result in undue hazards for pedestrians and other footpath users, contrary to the aims of DPP Policy DP4, which amongst other criteria requires safe and convenient access to footpaths, that the layout and siting of access must be acceptable in terms including highway safety and for pedestrians, and that front garden parking shall only be provided where the garden is capable of accommodating a parking space; and with DPP Policy DP2, which seeks inclusive, safe and accessible design. I do not find that the proposal would result in undue hazards to other vehicle users on the carriageway itself, but that does not alter my conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR