Dropped kerb

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2019 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/19/3220764 149 Rectory Road, Sutton Trinity, Sutton Coldfield, B75 7RU • 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 Lord David Williams against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref 2018/09730/PA, dated 29 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 January 2019. • The development proposed is described as a dropped kerb. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a footway crossing at 149 Rectory Road, Sutton Trinity, Sutton Coldfield, B75 7RU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2018/09730/PA, dated 29 November 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 1:200 Scale Site Location Plan 149 Rectory Road. Reasons 2. The appeal site comprises a mid terrace dwelling which has a gravelled forecourt area to the front. It is located in a residential area with a 30mph speed limit. Close by on the opposite side of the road is a pay and display and public house car park. Rectory Road is a classified road which has single yellow line parking restrictions on both sides of the carriageway. At my visit I noted that it is a busy road with a steady flow of traffic and is also a bus route. 3. There are a number of other dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site that have footway crossings and parking spaces although the circumstances of those sites differ from this. No 145 is an end terrace dwelling with a wider, deeper parking area in front of the dwelling. Nos 153 and 159 are end terrace dwellings which each have a drive to the side. Those are not therefore directly comparable and I have therefore considered this proposal on its own merits. 4. The Council says that the parking space at the appeal site is approximately 3.75m in length. At my visit I measured it as 4.0m which accords with the appellant’s measurement. Although this falls short of the Council’s required standard of 4.48m referred to in the planning officer’s report, I have not been Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/19/3220764 2 provided with any details of that requirement and it does not appear to form part of the development plan. As there are many smaller cars that could easily be accommodated within the available area, I disagree that the proposed footway crossing would result in cars overhanging or blocking the footway or have a detrimental impact on pedestrian safety. 5. Furthermore the Council has not provided any evidence of accidents that would contradict the research in Manual for Streets referred to by the appellant which found that very few accidents occurred involving vehicles turning in and out of driveways even on heavily trafficked roads. 6. In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan, in order to provide certainty. In the formal decision above I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision as it more accurately reflects the development proposed. 7. I conclude then that the proposal would not harm pedestrian or highway safety and would accord with policies PG3 and TP44 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) which seek to ensure that developments create a safe environment and encourage walking and safe use of the highway. There are no material considerations that justify determining the appeal otherwise and the appeal should be allowed. Sarah Colebourne Inspector