Dropped kerb / crossover

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 March 2026 by A Caines BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004174 256 Bury Street West, Edmonton, London N9 9LB • 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 Miss Harita Georgallides against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield. • The application Ref is 25/03057/HOU. • The development proposed is a dropped kerb / crossover. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a dropped kerb / crossover at 256 Bury Street West, Edmonton, London N9 9LB in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/03057/HOU, 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 drawings: Location Plan; Crossover Plan. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • The effect of the development on highway safety; • Whether adequate drainage arrangements have been demonstrated to prevent surface water run-off onto the public highway. Reasons Highway safety 3. The Council contends that reversing movements onto or off Bury Street West would be harmful to pedestrian and highway safety, and would impede public transport movements. However, the Council’s own Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (2013) confirms that domestic crossovers are “not generally intensively used” and that it may be acceptable for vehicles to reverse either onto or off the highway, with acceptability dependent on factors such as visibility, footway width, traffic volume and speed, and the presence of specific hazards. 4. Bury Street West at this location is a wide section of carriageway, subject to a 20mph speed limit, and with clear visibility in both directions. There is no street furniture or planting nearby that would obstruct sightlines. Nor is any substantive Appeal Decision 6004174 2 evidence before me to indicate that this part of the road experiences congestion or unusually high levels of pedestrian activity. 5. Furthermore, this side of Bury Street West already contains several established crossovers, including those serving the adjoining properties at Nos 254 and 258. Vehicles using these neighbouring crossovers necessarily perform reversing manoeuvres in circumstances materially similar to those that would arise at the appeal site. There is nothing before me to suggest that such movements currently give rise to highway safety problems. 6. The proposed crossover would enable the front garden to function as an off-street parking space in a manner consistent with the neighbouring properties. At approximately 5 metres in depth, the space would be sufficient to accommodate a vehicle entirely within the property, without overhang of the footway. The removal of an on-street parked vehicle is likely to improve the passage of vehicles, including buses, along this part of the road rather than impede it. It would also have a modest positive effect on the visibility available to drivers emerging from the adjacent crossovers. 7. Policy DMD 46 criterion f) of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (DMD) states that vehicles should be able to enter and exit a crossover in forward gear. However, the supporting text to the policy confirms that applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It further explains that permission may still be granted where it can be demonstrated that a vehicle can safely exit a driveway in reverse gear without detriment to traffic flow, including bus movements. In this case, the width of the carriageway, the low-speed environment and the clear visibility in both directions indicate that reversing manoeuvres could be undertaken safely and without impeding traffic. The presence of comparable crossovers in the immediate terrace, used in materially similar circumstances, reinforces this conclusion. 8. Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways ground if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts would be severe. For the reasons set out above, I have not been presented with persuasive evidence that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or severe cumulative effects. 9. I therefore conclude that the development would not be prejudicial to highway safety at this location. Thus, it complies with Policy DMD 46 and Core Policies 24 and 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010 (CS), insofar as they relate to matters of highway safety. Surface water run-off 10. The Council’s second refusal reason concerns the absence of drainage details and cites conflict with a wide set of policies. Most of these relate to the management of surface water within the context of flood risk, sustainable drainage design, or wider environmental infrastructure objectives. 11. The Council does not, however, identify any site-specific sensitivity, such as the appeal site being within an area at risk of flooding, or any known local drainage infrastructure constraints. Nor does the delegated report explain how the proposal would conflict with the aims of the cited policies. Appeal Decision 6004174 3 12. The evidence before me indicates that the front garden at No 256 has been hard surfaced for a considerable time. My observations confirmed that the surfacing slopes gently downwards away from the public highway, directing surface water towards the dwelling and within the curtilage. This arrangement is consistent with the Council’s Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers, which permit impermeable surfaces where rainwater drains into land within the boundary of the property and does not discharge onto the footway. As the proposal would not materially increase the extent of impermeable surfacing or alter the existing drainage pattern, it is not necessary to impose a condition requiring further drainage details. 13. In conclusion, I find no substantive evidence to support the Council’s assertion that the proposed crossover would lead to harmful surface-water run-off onto the highway, nor any clear link between this minor form of development and the broader flood-risk policies it has cited. Thus, the development complies with the relevant drainage aims of CS Policies CP21, CP24, CP28, CP29, and DMD Policies DMD45, DMD49 and DMD59. While the Council also refers to Policies DMD46 and DMD47, neither policy contains criteria relating to drainage, and I find no conflict with them. Conditions 14. I have imposed the standard time limit and approved plans conditions to provide certainty. No other conditions were suggested by the Council. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. A Caines INSPECTOR