Lowering of kerb in order to create vehicular access to a driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 February 2026 by K Townend BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001394 160 Keresley Road, Coventry CV6 2JJ • 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 Mrs Lianne Jordan against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref is PL/2025/0001536/HHA. • The development proposed is lowering of kerb in order to create vehicular access to a driveway. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for lowering of kerb in order to create vehicular access to a driveway at 160 Keresley Road, Coventry CV6 2JJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PL/2025/0001536/HHA, and the plans submitted with it, 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 submitted location plan, site plan, and driveway with drainage plan. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety with particular regard to the effect on availability of on-street parking spaces and safe access and egress. Reasons 3. The host dwelling, 160 Keresley Road, is a mid-terrace house which sits behind a residential frontage which is separated from the road by a pavement. This section of Keresley Road is a classified dual carriageway with a small grass verge separating the carriageways. Existing on-street parking along the appeal side of the road restricts its width to one vehicle wide. 4. At the time of my visit there was on-street parking available near the appeal site. However, I accept that this was a snapshot in time and that parking during evenings and weekends is likely to be busier. I also noted that the road is a bus route and that traffic along the road was steady. Nevertheless, traffic levels and vehicle speeds did not appear excessive. I also noted numerous vehicles parking and leaving the on-street spaces outside the shops, at the end of the terrace, and a vehicle enter and leave another off-street space near to the appeal site. 5. There are several other properties within the same terrace block that already have dropped kerbs. Whilst these plots may have been subject to historical planning Appeal Decision 6001394 2 decisions, or may not have consent, they nevertheless form part of the highway context. Manoeuvring into and out of a driveway, similar to that proposed, is an established characteristic of the area. Furthermore, traffic is only approaching in one direction and vehicles leaving the site can only do so in the direction of the traffic flow. 6. The vehicle I saw manoeuvre onto and off a driveway did so by reversing onto the drive and leaving in a forward gear. This did slow traffic but only for a short period of time. Furthermore, it was not dissimilar to the slowing of traffic that occurred when vehicles park and pull away from on-street spaces. For these reasons, that the proposed drop-kerb would not result in any significant additional manoeuvring and vehicles could safely reverse into the driveway and pull away forward, without having to have on-site turning. 7. Although, due to on-street parking either side, visibility of oncoming traffic would be restricted, vehicles travelling along this section of the road would be doing so with the awareness of driveways and on-street parking. Given the speed of approaching cars, other road users would have ample opportunity to react to a vehicle manoeuvring on or off the appeal site. Due to the low walls, the users of the driveway would also have adequate visibility of the footway in both directions to observe oncoming pedestrians. As such, it is likely that pedestrians and drivers, both on the pavement, highway and using the appeal scheme, would be alert to potential conflict around the site if applying due care and attention. 8. For these reasons, the access and its use associated with one dwelling would not cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Therefore, whilst recognising the concerns raised by the Highway Authority, I am satisfied that the proposal would allow a vehicle to enter and exit the site in a safe manner, without detriment to highway safety. 9. The development would result in the loss of the space outside the site for on-street parking, which is currently available for public use, 24 hours a day. This would be replaced by the provision of on-site parking for the host property. Although the driveway space would not be publicly accessible, I have no compelling evidence that the scheme would result in a reduction in on-street parking to a degree that would cause parking stress or prejudice highway safety. 10. For the above reasons, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on highway safety with particular regard to the effect on availability of on-street parking spaces and safe access and egress. I, therefore, find no conflict with Policies AC1 or AC2 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan, December 2017. Collectively these policies seek to resist development which could have a negative impact on the safety of the highway network or cause unacceptable levels of highway safety problems and require development to integrate with existing roads. Conditions 11. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, in addition to the standard implementation condition, it would be necessary, in the interests of certainty, to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. Appeal Decision 6001394 3 Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. K Townend INSPECTOR