New vehicle access, applying for dropped kerb, allowing personal vehicle access to 347 Hipswell Highway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 May 2026 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008168 347 Hipswell Highway, Coventry CV2 5FQ • 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 Jairaj Dukhi against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref is PL/2025/0002296/HHA. • The development proposed is described as ‘a new vehicle access, applying for dropped kerb, allowing personal vehicle access to 347 Hipswell Highway’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a vehicular access, including a dropped kerb, at 347 Hipswell Highway, Coventry CV2 5FQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PL/2025/0002296/HHA, 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, site plan 0503, plan ‘showing the property boundary in red, plan ‘showing driveway area in black’, and plan ‘showing area for drop kerb in black’. Procedural Matter 2. I have taken the description of the proposal in my banner from the application form, but in my formal decision, in the interests of clarity, I have used the shortened description in the Council’s decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the safety and convenience of highway users. Reasons 4. Hipswell Highway is a wide, classified urban road, lit by streetlamps, and which is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The residential properties along this stretch of it are set well back from the very gently curving carriageway, some behind driveways and areas of hardstanding. Those on its eastern side are located behind sections of pavement and a wide grass verge. There is intermittent on-street parking along this side of the road, whilst the western side is restricted by a double yellow line. Appeal Decision: 6008168 2 5. There are no bus stops, junctions, pedestrian crossings or other such highway features in the immediate vicinity of the site. Consequently, although I observed that this stretch of the road carries a reasonable volume of traffic, it is not a location characterised by complex or unpredictable vehicular and pedestrian movements. 6. The Council says that there would be sufficient space for vehicles to turn and enter the highway in a forward gear. Although there are a lamppost and signage close to where the dropped kerb would be located, in other regards this part of the highway is largely free from street furniture or other visual clutter. Thus, even if reversing manoeuvres would be necessary, there would be good intervisibility between drivers using the proposed access and pedestrians on the adjacent sections of pavement. 7. Intervisibility between drivers entering the carriageway from the proposed parking area and those proceeding southbound on Hipswell Highway could be partially restricted by on-street parking. However, the vehicular movements associated with a single dwelling would typically be very modest, and most drivers using the access would become familiar with the necessary manoeuvre, and would exercise appropriate caution. 8. Given the presence of established driveways along this part of Hipswell Highway, such manoeuvres would not be unexpected for road users, and I have no evidence that those existing accesses have resulted in highway incidents. Finally, although the provision of a dropped kerb would result in the loss of an on-street parking space, private parking space would be created within the site. 9. On the basis that drivers, pedestrians and cyclists would exercise reasonable care and attention, I am therefore satisfied that the scheme would not be significantly detrimental to the safety and convenience of highway users. 10. It would not therefore conflict with Policies AC1 and AC2 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017. Amongst other things, and in broad terms, these require that proposals should not cause unacceptable highway safety problems and that they should consider everyone’s needs. Neither would it conflict with the stance in the Coventry Connected (Transport and Accessibility) Supplementary Planning Document 2018 that proposals should not be prejudicial to highway safety. 11. Turning to the matter of conditions, as well as the standard time limit, a condition is necessary, in the interests of certainty, requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 12. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR