Access to a proposed drive for single vehicle parking

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 May 2026 by A Morrison MTCP MRTPI Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007395 57 Lock Road, Broadheath, Altrincham, WA14 4HQ • 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 John Quinn against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 117662/HHA/25. • The development proposed is access to a proposed drive for single vehicle parking. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for access to a proposed drive for single vehicle parking at 57 Lock Road, Broadheath, Altrincham WA14 4HQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 117662/HHA/25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, Reference TQRQM25320115453167, 16 November 2025 Site Plan, Reference TQRQN25320123844544, 16 November 2025 Proposed Plan, 11 October 2025 3) The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m have been provided each side of the vehicular access measured from and along the highway boundary. Such splays shall be within the red line of the site and shall thereafter be maintained free from obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adopted public highway. 4) The dropped kerb hereby approved shall be constructed to utilise and retain the existing kerb stones. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. In processing the application, the Council amended the description of development from that entered on the application form. There is no evidence before me that the appellant agreed to a revised description in writing, and I am satisfied that the use Appeal Decision 6007395 2 of the original description in the banner heading and formal decision above is appropriate. However, I have removed wording from the original description that does not describe development. 4. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. There have been some layout and subsequent changes to incorporate paragraphs into a policy-style format, as well as minor relevant alterations to the ways in which heritage matters are considered. However, there are no substantive changes in relation to the assessment of transport impacts as concerns highway safety. I am satisfied that, having reviewed the relevant changes, they do not have a material bearing on the substance of the main issue or indeed the arguments of the main parties thereon. Since the parties would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation. Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Linotype Conservation Area; and • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety, having particular regard to visibility. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance, including the CA 6. The Council’s evidence indicates that a previous planning permission from June 20181 included the creation of a vehicular access and a parking space in the same position as the appeal proposal. My attention has not been drawn to any material physical changes to the site or its surroundings since that permission was issued, including in respect of highways conditions and considerations. 7. The appeal site is within the Linotype Conservation Area (the CA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 8. The CA comprises a purpose-built 19th-century housing estate built for employees of the Linotype & Machinery Company Ltd factory. Having regard to its Character Area Appraisal (CAA), the CA’s special interest and significance stems predominantly from the large-scale survival of the original terraced estate plan form, across which are a distinctive variety of architectural styles. In relation to boundary treatments, the CAA notes the absence of a common historic pattern, with front gardens presently variously remaining open or enclosed to differing degrees by a variety of walls, fences and hedging. Vehicle parking mainly takes place on the roadside across the CA, although a number of corner properties benefit from off-street parking within their curtilages. 9. The appeal property occupies an irregularly shaped corner plot at the end of a ‘Style Six’ terrace and retains the principal architectural characteristics associated 1 Council’s reference: 93955/HHA/18 Appeal Decision 6007395 3 with that house type. It features a very shallow and open front garden, while its curved side and rear garden, located adjacent to the junction of Bemrose Avenue and Lock Road, is enclosed by timber panel fence set within concrete plinths and posts, with a tall evergreen hedge positioned behind. The CA’s Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) describes solid timber fences as inappropriate to the area. 10. Reflecting the CAA’s findings, I observed Lock Road to be characterised by a range of typically low front and side boundary treatments, including walls and fences. Where hedges are present, they are generally also of a modest height. Open or partially open frontages are also common throughout the CA, including at some corner plots where vehicular accesses have been formed to serve small driveways. Against this backdrop, the utilitarian fence and large hedge at the appeal site appear anomalous within the street scene and neither individually nor cumulatively make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. 11. The proposed parking space, to be located alongside the gable end of the appeal property within the side garden, would require the partial removal of the section of fence and hedge that currently fronts Lock Road, set behind a shallow grass verge. This limited opening up of the frontage, including hard surfacing of the part of the current verge, would not appear out of keeping with the mixed surrounding streetscape. Nor would it disrupt any consistent pattern of boundary treatment or result in the loss of an enclosure feature that adds to the overall quality of the area. 12. The proposal would not involve the conversion of a front garden to form a driveway, and it would not conflict the aspirations of the CAMP in this respect. I acknowledge that part of the established hedge alongside the highway junction would be removed, but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it benefits from any statutory protection. Moreover, the resulting increase in openness along this boundary would be more consistent with, and sympathetic to, the prevailing character of the locality than the existing arrangement. 13. I have been referred to guidance in the Trafford Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (TDC), adopted in 2024, as representing a change in circumstances since the previous permission. Due to its individual width and configuration within the terrace and wider streetscene, the appeal site is inherently a different layout to its neighbouring properties. Nevertheless, by virtue of its positioning to the side of the dwelling, adjoining its established garden, and set back from the pavement edge, the proposed single parking space would not appear visually dominant within the site frontage. Read as one of a number of small driveways on corner-positioned plots in the CA, it would also not be contextually inappropriate within the locality. 14. On this basis I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and would preserve the character and appearance of the Linotype Conservation Area. It would thus accord with the requirements of the Act, together with Policies JP-P1 and JP-P2 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 – 2039 and Policies R1 and L7 of the Trafford Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 (Core Strategy). Taken together, amongst other things, these policies require development to be of a contextually appropriate design that is reflective of local distinctiveness, and to conserve and preserve the historic environment, including conservation areas. Appeal Decision 6007395 4 15. It would furthermore accord with the TDC, CAA, CAMP, the Council’s Guide for Designing House Extensions & Alterations SPD and the Framework, all of which seek that development integrates with its surroundings, including by complementing the distinctively positive qualities of a conservation area. Highway safety 16. The proposed access to the 3.1 metres width parking space would be positioned on Lock Road, close to its junction with Bemrose Avenue and a short distance north of the nearby mini-roundabout. Due to the absence of turning space within the site, vehicles would not be able to enter and leave in a forward gear, necessitating a reversing manoeuvre either into the property or from the property onto the highway. 17. During my site visit, I observed that vehicle speeds were influenced by the prevalence of on-street parking, the closely spaced street pattern with regular junctions, and the presence of the mini-roundabout. Collectively, these features appeared to have a considerable traffic-calming effect, with speeds generally remaining well below the 30mph speed limit. I also noted traffic passing by the site to be relatively infrequent. While I recognise this was only a snapshot in time, it supports the contention that Lock Road mainly functions for local access, this being consistent with its situation between Lawrence Road and Weldon Road, both of which appear to accommodate through traffic. In addition, I noted that the opposite end of short Bemrose Avenue connects with Weldon Road, indicating that movements through its junction with Lock Road are likely to be particularly infrequent. 18. The Council’s Highways consultation response refers to the TDC’s specified minimum 3.3 metres width for single driveways and states that visibility splays are required to be provided within the adopted highway in accordance with Manual for Streets as well as pedestrian visibility splays of 2 metres x 2 metres. Although the Council’s delegated report further notes that the proposal would be located closer than the normally required 10 metres from a road junction, there is no evidence before me that this concern was raised in the Highways consultation response. 19. The proposed plans do not demonstrate highway visibility splays, nevertheless, due to the positioning of the appeal dwelling and retained part of the boundary treatment as shown, it is evident that only limited splays would be able to be achieved in either direction. However, owing to the road configuration around the mini-roundabout, there is no oncoming traffic along the nearside of Lock Road that runs perpendicular to the proposed access. During my site visit, I observed that adequate visibility would be available towards the far side of the carriageway, allowing drivers emerging from the site to see vehicles exiting the roundabout and travelling north along Lock Road, and vice versa. 20. In relation to southbound traffic on Lock Road, double yellow lines are in place at the corners of the junction with Bemrose Avenue, preventing on-street parking immediately to the north of the proposed access and thereby maintaining visibility at the junction. These restrictions would also enhance intervisibility between drivers approaching from the north and vehicles emerging from the access. Furthermore, there are examples of driveways serving nearby properties along this section of road that similarly do not provide space for vehicles to turn within the site. Drivers accessing properties in the area could therefore reasonably be expected to be familiar with such conditions, and therefore the potential for a reversing manoeuvre. Appeal Decision 6007395 5 The Council has provided no evidence that any of the existing off-street parking spaces within the Conservation Area have resulted in highway safety concerns. 21. Overall, having careful regard to the local highway conditions, the low traffic volumes and vehicle speeds observed during my site visit, and the fact that a single vehicle would be expected to enter and leave the appeal site only infrequently, I am satisfied that the likelihood of conflict with other highway users would be low and therefore would be acceptable. 22. In respect of the modest shortfall in the width of the parking space against the TDC standard, I am mindful that the SPD provides guidance rather than prescriptive requirements. As no harm has been identified arising from this deficiency, it would not be unacceptable on this basis alone. 23. In reaching a view based on the individual circumstances of this case, I recognise the Council’s concern that highway visibility splays have not been demonstrated but I am also mindful that the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that permission should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. For the reasons set out, I conclude that the proposed access would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety in this specific instance. No conflict would therefore arise with Policy L7 of the Core Strategy and the Framework in so far as relates to highway safety. Conditions 24. The Council has suggested two conditions in addition to the statutory commencement condition, the first of which concerns requiring compliance with the approved plans. I agree that a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. The second amounts to an informative concerning the need to gain further approval under Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 and does not therefore meet the tests of conditions as are set out in the Framework. 25. A condition requiring standard pedestrian visibility splays is necessary in the interests of highway safety, to which I am satisfied can be provided as specified, based on the approved plans. Finally, a condition requiring the incorporation of the existing kerb stones to the new access is necessary in the interests of the preservation of the character and appearance of the CA. Conclusion and Recommendation 26. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out. A Morrison APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 27. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions listed. Martin Seaton INSPECTOR