Formation of a vehicular access and dropped kerb to provide safe driveway access to the property for a Motability vehicle used by a disabled occupant. The works include lowering the kerb and modifying the footway in accordance with highway standards

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 July 2026 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009497 10 Hayling Road, South Oxhey, Hertfordshire WD19 7BW  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 Lisa Davis against the decision of Three Rivers District Council.  The application Ref is 26/0406/FUL.  The development proposed is the formation of a vehicular access and dropped kerb to provide safe driveway access to the property for a Motability vehicle used by a disabled occupant. The works include lowering the kerb and modifying the footway in accordance with highway standards. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure & Preliminary Matter 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 scheme. The description of development on the application form differs from the decision notice. Whilst the application form is detailed, it still sufficiently describes the development and has been reflected above. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety with particular regard to visibility. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal building is an end terraced dwelling with an area of hardstanding to the front. Outside of the appellants ownership, is a public footpath, a grass verge and on street public parking. Within the public parking there are two disabled spaces, one confirmed as being used by the appellant. The area is primarily residential with a school on the opposite side of the road. Parking restrictions are outside of the school. The speed limit is 30mph. Most residents appear to park in the public parking bays with limited instances of off-road parking. Where there are dropped kerbs, they do not cross existing public parking. As viewed on the site visit, it appears that the hardstanding is already being used as a parking space. 5. The dropped kerb would facilitate the crossing of the public parking area, the grassed verge and the pathway. There are minimal instances of this situation in locality. Resultantly, a vehicle would need to edge out of the driveway crossing the pathway for the driver to be able to see oncoming traffic on the highway. Parked vehicles in the public parking would limit the visibility for the driver of the exiting vehicle causing it to have to edge further into the highway. This would pose a risk Appeal Decision 6009497 2 to pedestrians and other users due to the crossing into the pedestrian pathway. A bonnet would all but be blocking the pathway and part of the carriageway. This would not only cause a hazard to pedestrians having to cross into the carriageway for avoidance which could increase their risk of conflict with a passing vehicle but also an increased risk a vehicular collision. 6. With a primary school in close proximity, there is a greater likelihood of children walking in this area either with or without adults. They may have less awareness of vehicle safety and being much shorter may be more difficult to spot for exiting drivers. Whilst there has been no collision data provided, this is not to suggest that there haven’t been near misses that haven’t been reported. In any event, this is based on the existing situation, not on the proposed. 7. The appellant has referenced other developments on the same road whereby they have use of dropped kerbs and off-road parking provision with Number 308 (No 308) Hayling Road being the most recently granted. No 308 is not sufficiently comparable with the appeal proposal. Whilst they are located on the same road, the site specifics including the distance from the primary school are different and pose different visibility options. In other circumstances, I have not been given any details on their planning status to be certain they are sufficiently comparable. 8. With this and the above in mind, the appeal scheme conflicts with Policy CP10 of the Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DM13 and Appendix 5 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document 2013 which amongst other things seeks to ensure that new development will be satisfactory in terms of highway safety. Other Matter 9. The evidence suggests that the appeal proposal is designed in a way to allow the appellant to access their property in a safe and consistent manner. I am aware that disability is a protected characteristic by the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. 10. The appellant currently has access to a disabled space directly outside of their property. I have not been provided with any compelling evidence as to why this current situation is not suitable. The current disabled bay as advised by the appellant is often occupied by non-disabled drivers. However, this is an enforcement matter, space is provided within the highway. The proposal would also result in the loss of a public disabled space for the gain for one private individual. It appears in any event that the appellant is currently parking off road on the property frontage. With this and the above in mind, dismissal of the appeal on the above grounds in the public interest would therefore be fair and proportionate having regard to the aforementioned duties. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan, and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Street Appeal Decision 6009497 3 APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR