Vehicular access with hard standing from Holly Hill and installation of electric car charging unit

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 March 2019 by J Alderman BA(Hons) MA MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3218789 47 Eversley Park Road, Southgate, N21 1JJ • 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 Murat Aydemir against the decision of Council of the London Borough of Enfield • The application Ref 18/03035/HOU, dated 31 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2018. • The development proposed is a vehicular access with hard standing from Holly Hill and installation of electric car charging unit. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Council amended the description of development when validating the application to include a reference to the electric charging point. The appellant did not object to this. For clarity I have included the reference to the electric charging point in the description of the development given on the application form in the heading above. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety. Reasons 4. Eversley Park Road is a residential street with a mixture of property types. A number of the properties have crossovers and parking spaces within their front gardens. Holly Hill is a side street off of Eversley Park Road comprising mainly semi-detached properties. These properties generally have driveways and crossovers. Street parking is limited due to the width of the road and the double yellow lines each side of the splay of the road on the approach to the junction with Eversley Park Road. 5. On the day of my visit there was a regular flow of traffic along Eversley Park Road, with a range of different types of vehicles using the road, including buses. I also observed a number of vehicles entering and leaving Holly Hill. 6. The appeal property is located on the corner of Eversley Park Road and Holly Hill and has an existing garage at the end of the rear garden with what appeared to be a parking area in front of it. The garage and parking area are accessed from Holly Hill. On the approach, when turning left from Eversley Park Appeal Decision APP/ Q5300/D/18/3218789 2 Road in to Holly Hill, immediately in front of the appeal property on Eversley Park Road there is a post box and a street sign. 7. The proposed parking space, which would be accessed from Holly Hill, would be created in what currently forms part of the front garden of the dwelling. From the plans provided and what I observed, the space would not be sufficient to enable a vehicle to enter and exit the space in forward gear, and no evidence has been provided to confirm otherwise. 8. The proposed access for the parking space would be located very close to the junction with Eversley Park Road. Given this, and the nearby street furniture, there would be limited visibility of, or from, the access. This would result in vehicles using it undertaking dangerous manoeuvres and creating a hazard for vehicles turning into Holly Hill, both of which would be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety. The fact that vehicles would have to either reverse in or out of the parking space increases the likelihood of hazardous movements cause by the proposal. 9. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety. Therefore, it would not comply with Policy DMD 46 of the Development Management Document (adopted November 2014), Policies 24 and 30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010 - 2025 (adopted November 2010) and the Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (April 2013) which, amongst other things, seek to safeguard highway safety for all users and ensure traffic flow is maintained. 10. I note and sympathise with the personal circumstances outlined by the appellant. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided the degree to which the revised parking arrangement would assist this resident, and whether other, less harmful, solutions have been explored that could accommodate these requirements. Moreover, personal circumstances seldom outweigh more general planning considerations and it is likely that the proposed development would remain long after the current personal circumstances cease to be material. 11. The requirements of the Lifetime Homes standards stated by the appellant are not relevant in this situation as, even if the dwelling has been refurbished and extended, it is not a new development. In addition, whilst it is stated by the appellant that the existing rear parking arrangements are not safe, no evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim. 12. The appellant, through the traffic survey they carried out, point to limited traffic movements in Holly Hill. However, even if the traffic movements are limited, due to the location of the proposed parking space, this would not sufficiently overcome the potential hazard caused. 13. In support of the appeal my attention has been drawn to a number of other properties whose front gardens are used for parking and which have vehicular accesses across the pavement. However, I do not have the full details of the circumstances of these cases, including their planning status or the development plan policies that applied at the time of their consideration. Moreover, many of the examples do not occupy corner plots, or appear to share the same locational characteristics as the appeal site. Accordingly, their circumstances are not directly comparable to those which apply in this appeal. I have, in any case, determined the appeal on its own merits Appeal Decision APP/ Q5300/D/18/3218789 3 14. Whilst I note that No 2a Holly Hill has a driveway located in similar proximity to the junction with Eversley Park Road, the creation of an additional access at a similar point in the road on the opposite side only increases the potential hazard for passing traffic. Conclusion 15. The appellant has stated that the proposal would benefit a resident of the dwelling who, due to age and health considerations, is unable to manage the current parking arrangements. In my assessment of the appeal I have therefore had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity. The proposed development would assist a person who shares a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED. However, based on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that the appeal scheme would necessarily offer the only solution to meeting the resident’s requirements and this lessens the benefit arising from the proposal. 16. It does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed. In this case the development would cause harm and be detrimental to highway safety. As such, it would be contrary to the development plan. In its favour it would provide a facility that would benefit an elderly occupier of the dwelling. However, on balance, I consider this benefit would not outweigh the planning objections to the proposal. 17. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. J Alderman INSPECTOR