Proposed off road parking / driveway for one vehicle to front of existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2025 by H Faulkner BSc (Hons) MSc PGCE MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001697 5 Yealmpstone Drive, Plymouth PL7 1HE • 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 Luke Procter against the decision of Plymouth City Council. • The application Ref is 25/01064/FUL. • The development proposed is described as ‘Proposed off road parking / driveway for one vehicle to front of existing dwelling.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Background and Main Issue 2. The application was refused for two reasons, the provision of a sub-standard access and inconsistencies between the plans. Having reviewed the information submitted and the evidence from both parties, the evidence demonstrates that there are differences in dimensions between the submitted drawings which, as a result, mean they do not accurately represent the site. I have taken this into account when considering the issues relating to the case. 3. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on pedestrian and highway safety. Reasons 4. The appeal property is situated within a housing estate on the edge of Plympton. The house is sited on the corner of Yealmpstone Drive and Tuxton Close. From the surrounding roads there is good visibility of the front of the property. 5. Safety concerns have been raised due to the proposed access being within 10 metres of the junction, that vehicles would not be able to turn on the site and as a result would need to reverse out of the space. 6. As a residential street speeds of traffic are likely to be low. Tuxton Close is a cul de sac and whilst it serves a number of properties the level of traffic will be more limited as a result. Vehicles approaching the proposed access from Tuxton Close would be travelling up hill and from a limited distance so would not be travelling at high speed. Vehicles turning into Tuxton Close from the Wolverwood Lane side would also be at low speed having just turned the corner. Vehicles turning from the other side would also be slower making the manoeuvre into the close and would have good visibility of the proposed driveway. Appeal Decision 6001697 2 7. Given the inconsistencies in the drawings, it is not possible to confirm the distance of the driveway from the junction. Even if this were less than 10 metres the visibility of the site is good and the speeds of vehicles in the area would be low, as a result, I do not find that in this case a dangerous situation would result. Furthermore, the need for a vehicle to reverse out of a property is not unusual in this context, therefore, vehicles and other road users would be exercising caution. 8. However, despite my findings above, the highlighted concerns with the drawings mean that I cannot be certain how the development will be constructed on the site. I also cannot determine whether a vehicle can enter or exit the site safely without needing to make multiple manoeuvres which could be dangerous for pedestrians and other road users. I accept that this may be possible but this cannot be confirmed based on the information available. 9. For the reasons above the proposed driveway, given the lack of certainty in respect of the drawings, could give rise to highway safety concerns and as such conflicts with Policy DEV29 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan which seeks, amongst other things, to provide safe and satisfactory traffic movements and vehicle access. Other Matters 10. I understand that the appellant may have marked out the proposals on site to demonstrate the distances involved and has offered that the plans can be amended. However, this appeal needs to be assessed on the basis of the plans before me, even if a more appropriate option may be possible. 11. The appellant states that the current driveway is not suitable for use due to its width and therefore cannot be used to charge an electric vehicle. I have not been presented with any evidence that the existing driveway could not be widened to meet this requirement. Even if this were not possible the weight given to the benefit of providing a charging point would not be outweighed by the concerns raised above. Conclusion 12. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. H Faulkner INSPECTOR