Proposed extension to existing dropped kerb, creating a new vehicular crossover and 1 No car parking space at 154 Beehive Lane IG4 5EE

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 November 2023 by N Unwin BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 December 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/23/3327979 154 Beehive Lane, Redbridge, Ilford IG4 5EE • 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 Ms Stella Resi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application ref. 0848/23, dated 23 March 2023, was refused by notice dated 2 June 2023. • The development proposed is described as a proposed extension to existing dropped kerb, creating a new vehicular crossover and 1 No car parking space at 154 Beehive Lane IG4 5EE. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The effect of the proposal on highway safety. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is set back from Beehive Lane by a small front garden. During my site visit this area of Beehive Lane appeared relatively busy, with the presence of a pedestrian crossing and traffic island located within the section of highway adjoining the appeal site having little impact on vehicle speeds. I recognise these observations represent a snapshot in time. The proposal would facilitate the use of part of the front garden as a parking space, with vehicular access adjoining the public footway and pedestrian crossing. 5. The configuration of the proposal would necessitate vehicles to reverse in or out of the site, limiting the driver’s visibility in so doing. When combined with the requirement of these vehicles to pass over the footway and pedestrian crossing, the proposal would be hazardous to the safety of pedestrians. Furthermore, reversing into the site would lead to vehicles slowing and stopping in the highway, unacceptably impeding the free flow of traffic. 6. Whilst vehicle speeds and movements to and from the appeal site via the proposed access would likely be commensurate with its residential nature, the above circumstances would still increase the likelihood of conflict with Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/23/3327979 2 pedestrians and motorists to an unacceptable degree. Such that it would conflict with Policy LP22 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (2018) and Policies T2 and T4 of The London Plan (2021) which when read together, broadly require new developments, amongst other things, to not increase road danger. Conclusion and Recommendation 7. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight which would indicate to the contrary. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. N Unwin APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 8. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR