Two crossover / dropped kerbs 2700mm wide to access front forecourt for car parking

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 October 2018 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7th November 2018 Appeal Reference: APP/T5150/D/18/3210089 103 Sudbury Court Drive, Harrow HA1 3SS  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 and Mrs K Kozic against the decision of Brent Council.  The application (reference 18/1802, dated 10 May 2018) was refused by notice dated 14 August 2018.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “two crossover / dropped kerbs 2700mm wide to access front forecourt for car parking”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of twin vehicular accesses and associated landscaping, at 103 Sudbury Court Drive, Harrow HA1 3SS, in accordance with the terms of the planning application (reference 18/1802, dated 10 May 2018), subject to the following conditions. 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: unnumbered Ordnance Survey Site Plan; drawing number A104 (Existing Front Forecourt Plan); drawing number A200 (Proposed Site & Roof Plan); drawing number A220 (Proposed Front Forecourt Plan). Preliminary point 2. Notwithstanding the description of the proposed development given in the planning application form, the appeal proposals can adequately and succinctly be described as the installation of twin vehicular accesses and associated landscaping. Main issues 3. The main issues to be determined in this appeal are, first, the effect of the proposal on highway safety and convenience for pedestrians and, second, the effect of the proposal on kerbside parking in the area. Appeal Decision: APP/T5150/D/18/3210089 2 Reasons 4. Sudbury Court Drive is a wide dual carriageway (the A4127) carrying relatively fast moving traffic. It runs through a suburban residential area in the vicinity of the appeal site but the houses facing the main road are served by narrow slip roads either side of the main dual carriageway, separated by grass verges. 5. Number 103 Sudbury Court Road, like other houses in the vicinity, is a substantial detached house on a relatively generous plot. The house itself is set back from the highway, behind its front garden. 6. An existing crossover allows a vehicle to park on the front of the plot and it is now proposed that a second crossover should be installed, to provide access to a second on-site parking space, while retaining some areas for landscaping of the site. 7. Under the broad heading “Promoting sustainable transport”, Section 9 of the recently revised ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ deals with a number of transport related issues. It points out the need to prevent significant impacts on highway safety and to ensure that “safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users” (paragraph 108). The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ also has the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12) and it points out the importance of creating an attractive streetscape and maintaining the overall quality of the area. 8. These objectives are underpinned by Policies in the Development Plan, notably at Policies DMP12 and DMP1 of the ‘London Borough of Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies’, which deal, respectively, with access design and design matters more generally. 9. The Council’s ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance Number 3’ also deals with “forming an access onto a road” and is also relevant, though it does not have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. 10. The width of the front garden is less than envisaged in the supplementary planning guidance for a site where two accesses would usually be acceptable, though by only a relatively small amount. In this case, however, access would be provided to a very narrow slip road, with kerbside parking, where vehicle speeds are very low. There is good visibility along the footpath and verge. In the circumstances of this particular case, pedestrians using the footway along the frontage of the slip road would neither be endangered nor even particularly inconvenienced by the new crossover. 11. Moreover, although a kerbside parking space would be removed, to provide for the new access, the overall pressure on parking would not be significantly changed since a dwelling of the size of number 103 Sudbury Court Drive could be expected to generate demand for additional parking provision in any case, with an impact on the take up of on-street parking spaces. 12. In addition, it is acknowledged that the proposed new access would leave adequate space for a suitable landscaping scheme to be carried out, as shown on the submitted plans. Hence, the scheme would not have an adverse effect on the appearance of the surroundings. Appeal Decision: APP/T5150/D/18/3210089 3 13. In short, I am convinced that no material harm would be caused to pedestrian safety by the proposed development and that the impact on kerbside parking would not justify a refusal of planning permission. Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me can properly be allowed and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 14. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of those suggested by the local planning authority in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained. Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR