Proposed new hard standing and dropped kerb to the front of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018 by Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P5870/D/18/3205136 166 Sutton Common Road, Sutton SM1 3JQ  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. Agron Bragjeci against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Sutton.  The application Ref DM2018/00439, dated 12 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 May 2018.  The development proposed is “Proposed new hard standing and dropped kerb to the front of the property”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I saw at my site visit that most of the property’s frontage had been paved and that a wall with railings had been erected to the front. This does not accord with the plans before me. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the details shown on the submitted drawings. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site. Reasons 4. No 166 is a semi-detached property located on the north-eastern side of Sutton Common Road on a corner with Fairlands Avenue. The area is generally residential in nature. Sutton Common Road is a long, busy classified road (the B279) and bus route. This part of it is situated south of its junction with Oldfields Road/Reigate Avenue (the A217). 5. At the site visit it was apparent that this part of Sutton Common Road is heavily trafficked and that there is considerable pedestrian and cyclist activity. Although the road is within a 30 mph speed limit, the volume and speed of traffic along the road was considerable at this point which is generally straight from the junction with the A217. Even bearing in mind the likely volume of movements generated by a single dwelling, a new access onto this classified road in this location would be likely to harm highway safety. 6. This is because No 166 is located on the corner with Fairlands Avenue. There are double yellow lines around this corner and an existing lowered kerb for pedestrians. Whilst visibility is reasonably good in both directions, there are a Appeal Decision APP/P5870/D/18/3205136 2 number of trees, on-street parking bays and a lamp post all in close proximity to the proposed access point. On the opposite side of the road in close proximity there is another junction with Clensham Lane. The combination of the road markings, on-street parking bays, street furniture, the trees, the speed limit for the road and its proximity to the junction reduce visibility and add to the plethora of issues that a driver would need to contend with whilst seeking a gap in the traffic. This means drivers may be less aware of pedestrians using the footway leading to an increase in hazard for other road users. 7. Taking all these factors into account, the addition of another access point to the highway in this location would add to the complications for drivers along Sutton Common Road and would materially harm the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in this location. In line with the National Planning Policy Framework, there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety and therefore the development should be refused. 8. The appellant points out that an access to No 151, another corner property has been approved. There are also some other properties along the road with accesses, but they are not directly comparable as they do not have the same relationship to the highway and I do not know whether they are approved or not. From the information before me about No 151, it seems the access is onto Broomloan Lane rather than Sutton Common Road. The equivalent road to No 166 would be Fairlands Avenue. I note No 166 already has access to this road although I have no information as to whether this is approved or not. 9. Taking all other matters raised into consideration, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Ann Skippers INSPECTOR