For the installation of dropped kerbs to front drive

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 October 2025 by R Dickson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000640 23A Ruby Road, Southampton SO19 7NB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Steve Culter against the decision of Southampton City Council. • The application Ref is 25/00724/FUL • The development proposed is for the installation of dropped kerbs to front drive. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appellant has drawn attention to the decision notice which only refers to plan no PL/05. In later correspondence, the appellant confirmed that the plans submitted were incorrectly labelled. The Councils report indicates that they were aware of the appeal site in its existing form, and the proposed plan when considering the merits of the case. For the avoidance of doubt, I have considered both of the plans submitted at application stage, which show the existing and proposed scheme. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (a) pedestrian safety, and (b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with specific regard to the provision of on-street parking. Reasons Pedestrian safety 4. The appeal property is a bungalow located on Ruby Road, a residential street where dwellings are set back within their plots with parking areas to the front. Most dwellings have front boundary treatments with an opening to allow vehicular access onto the driveway. Although most have sufficient space to park multiple vehicles on each driveway at angles to one another, the section of dropped kerb is only long enough for one car to cross the pavement at a time. To utilise the whole parking area, a manoeuvre within the driveway is required. A few dwellings differ, in so far as they have been altered to have an open frontage, with a stretch of dropped kerb spanning the width of most of the plot allowing vehicles to park next to one another. 5. The front of the appeal site is covered with hard standing and does not have any front boundary treatment. Despite the open frontage, the existing driveway is Appeal Decision 6000640 2 accessed in the same way as most others on the road, where vehicles must manoeuvre within the driveway to park at angles to one another. Where driveways have a small vehicular opening, such as the appeal site, the shorter length of dropped kerb ensures that pedestrians have a short distance to travel where vehicles may cross the pavement to access a driveway. In addition, a smaller vehicular crossing allows inter-visibility between footpath users and drivers, adding to the safer environment. 6. The appellant asserts that to gain access to the whole parking area as existing, they would need to drive over a raised kerb, which by their own admission would be inappropriate and dangerous. However, as I have identified, the existing driveway would be accessed in the same way as other driveways with a front boundary. Although the proposal would provide an additional off-street parking space, it has not been demonstrated to me why an additional space would be necessary, particularly given the availability of on-street parking. 7. The proposal would allow parking for at least 3 vehicles side-by-side. While the outside vehicles would have some degree of visibility of oncoming pedestrians in one direction, the middle vehicle would not have the same visibility. As a result, the driver and pedestrian would have limited awareness of one another, delaying their reaction times. This is particularly important when considering all users of the pavement, including those who are disabled. As such, the effect of the proposal would erode pedestrian safety for those travelling past the appeal site to a harmful level. 8. The existing arrangement allows a vehicle to be parked on the road, directly in front of the appeal site, which is common among other dwellings on Ruby Road. The current visibility of oncoming pedestrians is not obscured by the parked vehicle for drivers pulling out of the driveway. As such, the increase in length of the dropped kerb, and the loss of the parking space directly outside of the appeal site would have no effect on pedestrian safety, therefore this does not constitute a benefit, and I give it limited weight. 9. Other examples of dropped kerbs allowing access to the full width of the driveway are present on Ruby Road. Most notably, the neighbouring dwelling, No 23, has an extended length of dropped kerb which appears to provide space for three or more cars to be parked side-by-side. I have not been provided with evidence of whether the dropped kerb has planning permission, or whether any permission pre-dated the current policies upon which my assessment is based. However, the proposal next to the existing neighbouring dropped kerb at No 23, with only a small area of raised kerb between, would cumulatively increase the harm to pedestrian safety that I have identified above. 10. I acknowledge that no highway safety data has been provided by either party, however based on my findings above and my observations on site, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to pedestrian safety. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SDP 1 (i) and TI 2 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (amended 2015) (Local Plan) and point 4 of Policy CS13 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (amended 2015), which collectively seek to ensure that development promotes safe and accessible streets. Appeal Decision 6000640 3 11. The Council has identified paragraph 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Guide (2006), which seeks to ensure that access is designed so that it is safe for pedestrians and cyclists to share vehicular routes. Although this is guidance only, I do not find that it is relevant to the proposal before me, owing to the separation between the pavement and the road. Living conditions 12. The proposal would remove an area of kerb which could be used for on-street parking. During my site visit, it was evident that the arrangement of on-street parking and dropped kerbs near to the site, together with the width of the road, would make it difficult for vehicles to be parked on both sides of the street, broadly opposite one another. In this regard the loss of the on-street parking space outside the appeal site would free up the space opposite to be used, in accordance with the Southampton City Council Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2011). 13. During my site visit, albeit for a limited period forming only a snapshot in time, a number of cars were occupying on-street parking spaces. Despite this, plenty of unoccupied on-street spaces remained which could be used by both residents and visitors. I have not been provided with any evidence of on-street parking demand within the area, or that there is local on-street parking stress. 14. Therefore, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I conclude that the proposal would have negligible impact upon the parking situation in the area and it would not harm on-street parking. Accordingly, it would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to the provision of on street parking, therefore I find no conflict with Policy SDP 1 (i) of the Local Plan, in so far as it seeks to ensure that planning permission will be granted for development which does not unacceptably impact the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Other Matters 15. An appeal concerning 37 Woodmill Lane has been provided to me (Appeal Ref: APP/D1780/D/22/3302933). The example and the current appeal share similarities in terms of their reason for refusal on the grounds of parking. However, highway or pedestrian safety did not form a main issue and did not appear to be discussed in the Inspectors reasoning. Given that I have found harm in respect of pedestrian safety, the current appeal and that at Woodmill Lane are not comparable. Accordingly, the example is of limited weight in my decision. Conclusion 16. Although I have found no harm in respect of the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with regard to parking, I have found harm to pedestrian safety. As such, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R Dickson INSPECTOR