I wish to extend the dropped kerb about 2 foot more to the right to make the entry and exit on and off of my drive easier “ Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 June 2026 by H Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010083 33 Macclesfield Road, Hazel Grove, Stockport SK7 6BD • 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 Louise Tanner against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is DC/098263. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “I wish to extend the dropped kerb about 2 foot more to the right to make the entry and exit on and off of my drive easier “ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form. I note that there was agreement to amend the description to read “Proposed extended dropped kerb and extended site vehicular access.” I have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling at the corner of Macclesfield Road and Chatsworth Road, set back from the highway with a low wall boundary treatment. There is an existing access to the dwelling, with a dropped kerb, shared with the neighbouring property. 5. Macclesfield Road is a busy road with double yellow lines outside the property, in part due to the proximity of the junction. The area is characterised by similar detached dwellings with other dropped kerbs in the vicinity of the appeal site. 6. The proposed reduction in the number of full height kerb stones to extend the existing dropped kerb would result in the delineation of the pedestrian crossing point being compromised. The established dropped kerb currently serves two dwellings and the extension of it would result in a substantial length where vehicles could cross the footway. Due to the proximity of the pedestrian crossing this would likely result in the crossing point becoming unsafe, particularly for visually impaired pedestrians. Appeal Decision 6010083 2 7. Whilst there is an absence of technical evidence before me to indicate existing highway issues in this location, there is also no technical evidence to indicate that the proposal would be safe for pedestrians. I note that the occupiers utilise the existing access to the dwelling and that the current width of the drive results in awkward vehicle manoeuvres. The widening of the driveway and increase in the length of the dropped would assist the occupiers with accessing their driveway, however it would nevertheless lead to an increased risk to pedestrians using the footpath and crossing point and harm highway safety. 8. I have had regard to the examples of similar crossing points that have been referred to. However, I note that there are clear differences between the proposal and the individual circumstances surrounding these. In particular, the examples at 18 Macclesfield Road and 104 Chester Road are signalled crossings controlled by traffic lights with tactile paving. Whilst the crossing point at 77 Chester Road is similar to that near the appeal site, it has tactile paving to assist pedestrians in locating the crossing point. From that perspective, those other examples are not directly comparable to the scheme before me. I have determined the appeal on the site-specific circumstances of the site. 9. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would harm highway safety. It would conflict with Policies SIE-1, CS9 and T-3 of the Stockport Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011) which together and amongst other matters seek to ensure development ensures the safety of users, considers the needs of the most vulnerable road users and be of a safe design. Other Matters 10. I note the appellant’s reference to there being no objection in respect of residential amenity or character of the area. Nevertheless, a lack of objection is effectively neutral in my determination of the appeal and it has not altered my conclusions on the main issue. Conclusion 11. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. H Senior INSPECTOR