Dropped kerb/footpath crossing

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 January 2019 by Steven Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State . Decision date: 22nd May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/18/3216581 118 Mere Green Road, Sutton Coldfield, B75 5DA • 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 Daniel Neylon against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref 2018/06170/PA, dated 25 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 4 October 2018. • The development proposed is a dropped kerb/footpath crossing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety. Reasons Site and proposal 3. The appeal property is a mid-terrace of four, two-storey dwellings on the inside of a slight bend. Its front amenity space is hard surfaced. Several other properties in the immediate vicinity are similarly treated and are used for car parking over dropped kerbs with access directly off Mere Green Drive. 4. The proposal is for the construction of a dropped kerb to the front of 118 Mere Green Drive in order to facilitate a vehicular crossing leading to the hard- surfaced area of the dwelling’s front amenity space. Highway safety 5. The depth of the amenity space is approximately 4.3 metres when measured at right angles to the front of the property and up to its boundary with the public footpath. The appellant considers that the available space, when measured at an angle to the dwellinghouse, is approximately 4.7 metres, which he considers sufficient to park his vehicle without it overhanging the adjoining pavement. 6. He also considers that the available space parallel to the dwellinghouse, at approximately 4.3 metres, is sufficient for a small car and is greater than that Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/18/3216581 2 which some local authorities require. However, I have no additional evidence before me of other local authority requirements. 7. On my site visit, I was unable to see if a car could be parked either parallel to the dwellinghouse or at an angle to it. I consider that a distance of some 4.3 metres is likely to be sufficient for the parking of a small car. However, this might not always be the case, and it cannot be guaranteed that future occupiers will always own small cars. The alternative of parking at an angle would involve awkward manoeuvring which might be a deterrent to its use in this way and might itself pose a risk to the safety of pedestrians. 8. The appellant has submitted photographs which show cars parked on front amenity spaces, some of which overhang the pavement. However, I have no information relating to the circumstances leading to their presence, and they are not good examples to follow. In some cases, the examples illustrate the potential for owners of small spaces to possess cars too large for them. Moreover, I have considered this appeal on its individual planning merits. 9. On the evidence before me, I find that there would be the likelihood of a parked vehicle overhanging the footpath. Any such overhanging could require pedestrians, including pedestrians with prams or wheelchairs, to leave the pavement into the road, on the slight bend, and with the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, there would be possible difficulties and accidents for persons who are visually impaired. I give such considerations considerable weight. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would result in material harm to highway safety and would be contrary to Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (DP) which seeks to create environments which are safe for people with disabilities and would also be contrary to Policy TP44 which aims to promote the efficient, effective and safe use of the existing transport network. I also conclude that it would be contrary to chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), which aims to prevent unacceptable impacts on highway safety and to facilitate pedestrian movements. Other matters 11. The use of the front amenity space for car parking, which the proposed development would permit, would enable an electric charging point to be used at the property. This would, in small part, assist with mitigating climate change. On my site visit, I was also able to see the limited amount of on- street parking and the appellant has referred to a possibility of further parking restrictions. 12. However, none of these matters outweigh the harm I have found. Conclusion 13. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Steven Hartley INSPECTOR