Formation of vehicle crossover access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 June 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/D/18/3200002 86 Pawsons Road, Croydon CR0 2QF • 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 Antoni Clarke against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref 17/03523/HSE was refused by notice dated 31 January 2018. • The development proposed is the formation of vehicle crossover access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety for users of Pawsons Road. Reasons 3. The proposal is a dropped kerb to provide a vehicle crossover along the highway frontage of the appeal property, which is a mid terrace dwelling that faces Pawsons Road, which the Council states is a classified road. The new crossover would provide access from the highway to the existing hard surface area in front of the main house for off-street vehicle parking. 4. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document No 2, Residential Extensions and Alterations (SPD) advises that when considering a car parking space in the front garden the area should be large enough to ensure that a car does not overhang the footway. Accordingly, the SPD indicates that the new parking space should be at least 4.8 metres in depth. In this case, the length of the new parking space would fall well short of that minimum threshold even taking into account the absence of gates at the highway frontage. 5. As a result, a typical family sized car or a larger vehicle parked at right angles to the road would be very likely to overhang the adjacent footway. This arrangement would cause a significant obstruction that would be likely to require pedestrians, particularly mothers with pushchairs or wheelchair or mobility scooter users, to step into the highway in order to pass by. At the mid afternoon site visit, I observed that Pawsons Road was well used with a steady flow of vehicles along it in both directions. In those circumstances, it would be neither safe nor desirable to permit a development that would be likely to require pedestrians to step into the highway to navigate past it. 
 Appeal Decision APP/L5240/D/18/3200002 2 6. The limited size of the hard surface area would also offer no opportunity for a vehicle to both enter and leave the site in a forward gear. Consequently, any vehicle using the hard surface area for parking would need to reverse into or out of the site onto the adjacent highway. That manoeuvre would be close to parked vehicles given that there is parking along this part of Pawsons Road, which I saw was well used. Reversing into or out of the site close to parked vehicles would be far from ideal given the restricted visibility of oncoming road users. Furthermore, views of a vehicle reversing out of the site by approaching road users may also be obscured by parked cars. Even though the number of vehicle movements using the new crossover would be modest, the appeal scheme would be likely to result in motorists slowing down and either turning into or out of a well-used road with restricted visibility in reverse. This arrangement poses an obvious and significant highway danger. 7. I saw several examples of properties with dropped kerbs and off-street forecourt parking along Pawsons Road including those to which the appellant has referred and provided photographs. Most of these existing accesses also rely on vehicles reversing onto or from the highway. I am unaware of the detailed circumstances of these arrangements and most examples reinforce my concerns with regard to highway safety. These cases do not persuade me that the proposal, which would pose a significant safety hazard, should be accepted. 8. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety for the users of Pawsons Road. As such, it is contrary to Policy UD13 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s SPD. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that new development provides parking that is safe and secure. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks safe and suitable access for new development. 
 Conclusion 9. For the reasons set out above, and taking into account the absence of objections from others, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR