Vehicular access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 October 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3208967 123 Nightingale Road, LONDON, N9 8QH  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 Costa Charalambous against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The undated application Ref. 18/00826/HOU was refused by notice dated 14 May 2018.  The development proposed is vehicular access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Question 3 of the planning application form, ‘Description of Proposed Works’, has not been completed, and so I have used that given on the decision notice and by the appellant on the appeal form. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (1) highway safety; and (2) the character and appearance of the area and streetscape. Reasons Highway Safety 4. The appeal property is a mid-terrace house fronting Nightingale Road, a busy ‘classified’ road. There is a mix of properties with enclosed and planted front gardens and others which have been hard surfaced for vehicle parking. Stretches of Nightingale Road also have defined ‘half-on-half-off’ parking bays, spanning part of the pavement and part of the road. One such area is located outside of the appeal site. 5. There are nearby properties which benefit from on-site parking and a dropped kerb off Nightingale Road, but Policy DMD 46 of the Enfield Development Management Document (DMD) 2014 does not support the creation of new accesses onto busy classified roads. Where they are permitted, they should not increase parking pressures in areas already experiencing high on-street parking demand, and should not have any adverse impact on the free flow and safety of traffic on the adjoining highway. The policy also requires there to be no alternative safe access, such as from the side or rear. 6. At the time of the appeal site visit there appeared to be parking pressure in the area as many of the roadside spaces were occupied. Creating a vehicular Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3208967 2 crossover at this point would remove an existing public space, and as there is insufficient space within the appeal site for turning it would be necessary for vehicles to either back into the appeal site or to reverse out. In either scenario, this would involve manoeuvring on the footway or carriageway with the potential to affect traffic flow and the safety of other drivers and pedestrians. 7. It would appear that there is an alternative means of parking for the appeal property via a gated rear service road off Wellstead Avenue, a side road a short distance from the appeal site. In this context, not only would the proposed access create highway risks, but there would appear to be an alternative parking option available. 8. I note the appellant’s assessment that the proposal would not generate high levels of vehicle movements, that visibility in both directions meets current standards, and that movements would take place at slow speed. However, the proposal would result in unnecessary additional movements that could be hazardous. The introduction of slow-moving vehicles into a carriageway with steady-flowing traffic would create risks for other road users. Although the appellant advises that accident records for the locality confirm that no incidents have been caused, involved or contributed by the manoeuvre of vehicles to and from existing crossovers, no evidence to this effect has been provided. 9. The appeal submission does not include details of planning permissions for other crossovers along this stretch of Nightingale Road, and therefore it is unclear if they were assessed against current highway standards. However, I note the prevalence of fixed bollards in pavements, which suggest efforts to prevent the use of unauthorised accesses. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposal has the potential to give rise to hazards to highway safety, in conflict with the aims of Policy DMD 46, Core Policy 30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010 (CS) which seeks to promote safe and accessible neighbourhoods, and advice in the ‘Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (excluding Heavy Duty Crossovers)’ April 2013. However, I share the appellant’s view that CS Core Policy 24 is not applicable to this case. Character and Appearance 11. The appeal property has an enclosed and grassed front garden, albeit the appellant’s statement refers to the frontage being hardstanding, with no green landscaping and a complete loss of the original boundary treatment. However, within the street scene there is a mix of open and paved frontages, and gardens enclosed by low walls or other means. I note that CS Core Policy 30 seeks to reverse the decline caused by loss of boundary treatments and parking on front gardens, but in its mixed context I do not find that the removal of the enclosed garden would detract from the character and appearance of the streetscape. In this regard it would accord with Policy DMD 46a, but this does not alter my conclusion of harm on the first main issue. Conclusion 12. For the above reasons, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR