Provision of a vehicle crossover and a new proposed front driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by F Leung BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005255 269 Eden Park Avenue, Beckenham, Bromley BR3 3JN • 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 & Mrs Rubio against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 24/03930/FULL6. • The development proposed is provision of a vehicle crossover and a new proposed front driveway. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the use of the proposed vehicle crossover on the safety of pedestrian, cyclists and drivers using Eden Park Avenue. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is one of the terraced houses on Eden Park Avenue, together with those on Tonge Close, they form a distinctive and cohesive group, characterised by a uniform built form and appearance, a regular plot rhythm and consistent building lines. 4. None of the dwellings in this terrace fronting Eden Park Avenue have off-street parking within the front gardens. The front gardens provide a clear separation between these dwellings and the highway and, in the absence of enclosure to the frontages, contribute to the structure of the street scene. They also provide greenery, which, together with the adjoining Havington Park, reinforces the verdant character of the area. 5. The houses on the opposite side of the avenue are of a contrasting built form and in several cases front garden areas have been paved to provide car parking space. Appeal Decision 6005255 2 6. The proposal would involve paving the existing grassed front garden to form hardstanding for a driveway. Although a flower bed is proposed along the northern boundary, the majority of the frontage would be replaced by hardstanding to create a parking area. The resulted loss of the grassed frontage would erode the established soft landscaped character, weaken the visual demarcation between the highway and the dwellings, and reduce the verdant quality of the street scene. 7. The appellants refer to other dropped kerbs and parking areas in their appeal statement. While there are other such parking arrangements in the area, they have had harmful effect on the street scene. Furthermore, they are associated with a different style and character of housing. Nevertheless, save for one dropped kerb which serves a footpath link, the front gardens serving the terrace of houses of which the appeal site forms part have been retained. These make a positive contribution to the open character of the area. Notwithstanding any precedent set by the loss of front garden features, the proposed development would result in a significant level of harm. 8. The provision of a narrow flower bed and low-level boundary treatment would retain a degree of openness, but only when the car is not parked on the frontage. To that extent, these elements of the proposal would only mitigate the visual harm to a limited extent. 9. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), and Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (the LP), which together, amongst other considerations, seek high-quality design that positively responds to the existing street scene and local character. Highway safety 10. This section of the Eden Park Avenue is a classified road and local distributor. Some on-street parking spaces are provided immediately adjacent to the proposed crossover. 11. There would be no permanent physical obstruction within the sightlines of the proposed access. Furthermore, traffic movements associated with the use of the proposed parking space would be modest and vehicle speeds low while the car was manoeuvring. However, visibility to the south would be severely restricted by on-street parking as established by the Road Safety Audit Stage 1 (dated 5 March 2025) (the RSA). 12. The RSA recommends increasing the distance between the proposed driveway and parked cars to the south. However, as noted by the appellants, the RSA does not state that the access as proposed is unsafe. 13. The Council is concerned that given parking pressure in the area, it would be difficult to remove or relocate parking spaces. Thus, there is no certainty that the relocation of on-street parking spaces could be secured by way of a planning condition as suggested by the appellants. Appeal Decision 6005255 3 14. While no parking survey has been submitted, during my site visit on a weekday afternoon, I observed heavy use of on‑street parking with limited spaces available in the vicinity. Traffic flows were also significant and the available carriageway width, given the parked vehicles, could not easily accommodate two‑way traffic movement in this section of the street. There were instances of vehicles needing to wait in front of the site to allow opposing traffic to pass. In these circumstances, the on‑street parking immediately to the south would obstruct intervisibility between vehicles using the proposed driveway and traffic along the road. 15. The appellants refer to other crossovers and driveways in the vicinity of the site. While these could have the effect of slowing traffic along Eden Park Avenue as drivers would potentially be anticipating vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway, they also create hazards in themselves. The adverse effect which those parking arrangements are having on the safety of users of Eden Park Avenue would be compounded by the introduction of an additional vehicle crossover on the appeal site. 16. For the reasons set out above, the proposed vehicle crossover would be harmful to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers using Eden Park Avenue. Therefore, it would not comply with The London Plan Policy T2 and the LP Policy 32, which, in summary, are consistent with the aim of promoting safer streets. It would also fail to comply with the requirements of LP Policy 34, which require a development proposal to demonstrate its acceptability in terms of road safety through a road safety audit. Other Matters 17. The appellants refer to the principle of the development, which is not contested by the Council. They also contend that the proposal would be an effective use of land, which is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In respect of the latter, this has to be set against the other aims of the Framework, which include achieving well-designed places. In this case, the benefits arising from the effective use of land for the provision of an off-street parking space do not outweigh the harm to the street scene and the safety of road users. 18. The appeal site is not within a conservation area or within an area subject to an Article 4 direction. However, the absence of harm in these respects weighs neither in support nor against the appeal proposal. An interested party also refers to the potential benefit in meeting the need for off-street parking for families. As this point has not been substantiated, it therefore attracts very limited weight in favour of the appeal and does not outweigh the harm which I have found. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposed development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. F Leung INSPECTOR