To construct new permeable driveway for secure off street parking and crossover

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2019 by Sarah Dyer BA BTP MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/19/3223731 38 Parsonage Lane, Enfield EN2 0AJ • 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 Reza Zahidy against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield. • The application Ref 18/03334/HOU, dated 27 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 December 2018. • The development proposed is to construct new permeable driveway for secure off street parking and crossover. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the impact of the development on the safe and free flow of traffic on Parsonage Lane. Reasons 3. Parsonage Lane serves a predominantly residential area which is characterised by a variety of housing types including short terraces of houses and flatted accommodation. Both Parsonage Lane and the roads which run off it are subject to significant levels of on-street parking and there are double yellow lines to control parking close to junctions. As a consequence of the level of on street parking, the carriageway is narrowed and large vehicles, such as buses, have to manoeuvre with care to pass one another. There was a steady flow of traffic along Parsonage Lane during my site visit. 4. 38 Parsonage Lane (No. 38) is a mid-terrace house. The adjacent house, number 40, has a hard-surfaced frontage but no dropped kerb. However, the occupiers of both numbers 42 and 36 park vehicles on their frontages and have dropped kerb access. There is no space for turning to the frontages of any of the houses in the terrace and where parking takes place it would result in drivers either reversing vehicles into or out from parking spaces across the pavement, beside cars parked on the street and into the useable extent of the carriageway. Such manoeuvres would be likely to compromise the safety of users of the pavement and could conflict with and delay vehicles on the road, including buses. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/19/3223731 2 5. The appeal scheme would provide a driveway between the front wall of No. 38 and the edge of the pavement. Whilst the driveway would be large enough to accommodate a car clear of the pavement, as evidenced by the appellant’s photographs, it would not be of a sufficient size to allow a vehicle to turn so as to be able to access and egress the driveway in forward gear. 6. The introduction of a further off-street parking space, without adequate turning facilities, within the terrace of houses would amplify the adverse impacts which already arise from the use of similar facilities at numbers 42 and 36. Given my observations regarding the significant amount of traffic using Parsonage Lane and the constraints in terms of on-street parking which affects the width of the useable carriageway, the development would be likely to result in additional conflict between road users and a consequent adverse impact on the free and safe flow of traffic. In contrast I have very limited evidence to demonstrate that a vehicle could safely exit the driveway in reverse gear without detrimentally affecting the flow of traffic. 7. The appellant argues that intensity of use of the proposed parking space will be low and that vehicles will be moving slowly. Whilst this may prove to be the case, there is no means by which the use of the parking space could be limited and even a slow-moving vehicle would have the potential to conflict with other road users and obstruct traffic flow. The appellant also considers that visibility in both directions would meet required levels. However, there is very limited evidence to demonstrate this and in any event on-street parking would make manoeuvring in and out of the driveway difficult. 8. My attention has been drawn to the lack of records of accidents attributable to the use of driveways on Parsonage Lane. However, I have very limited information to support this reference. 9. I conclude that the appeal scheme would have a harmful impact on the safe and free flow of traffic on Parsonage Lane. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies DMD45 and DMD46 of the Improving Enfield Development Management Document (2014). These policies, jointly, amongst other things, seek to ensure that parking layouts meet all manoeuvring requirements and that vehicle crossovers and dropped kerbs would have no adverse impact on the free and safe flow of traffic, particularly buses, and that vehicles can enter/and exit the crossover in forward gear. For similar reasons the development would not accord with advice set out in the Enfield Council Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (excluding Heavy Duty Crossovers) April 2013. 10. I do not find Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2016 nor Policy CP24 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010-2015) (2010) to be directly relevant to this case as they relate to the provision of car parking in accordance with standards and to the improvement of the road network, respectively. Other Matters 11. The appellant refers to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (the Framework) in support of his appeal. A revised version of the Framework was published in February 2019 (the revised Framework) however no changes have been made to the content directly relevant to the subject matter of this appeal and both parties were able to refer to the revised Framework in their statements. Taking the revised Framework as a whole I do not find that, as a Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/19/3223731 3 material consideration, it outweighs the conclusions which I have reached regarding the main issue. Conclusion 12. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed. Sarah Dyer Inspector