To install a block paved driveway with dropped kerb

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 July 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010686 29 Perry Street, Crayford DA1 4RB • 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 Herman De Jager against the decision of the London Borough of Bexley Council. • The application Ref is 26/00067/FUL. • The development proposed is to install a block paved driveway with dropped kerb. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on highway safety. Reasons 3. The appeal site is to the front of a two storey semi-detached house at 29 Perry Street (No.29). The proposal involves the removal of the existing dwarf front boundary wall and the repaving of the front garden to accommodate car parking, which would be facilitated by the creation of a dropped kerb and vehicular crossover of the footway. 4. To the front of No.29 carriageway parking is restricted. However, there is a relatively wide footway, which provides space for a designated off carriageway parking space. This involves a vehicle parking with all of its wheels on the footway. This parking arrangement is a feature of this part of the street, which forms part of the A2000, a London Distributor Road. The length of footway parking in this part of the street is split by vehicular accesses to car parking to other properties in the street, with a dropped kerb and crossover in front of the convenience store at 17 Perry Street. The planning status and details of the off street parking arrangements for these other properties has not been provided to me. 5. The A2000 is part of the London Strategic Road Network, with a 30MPH speed limit. On the day of my site visit there were light controlled road works in this part of the street, alternating the traffic flow, as such, it was not possible of me to observe vehicle speeds at this point, although I note that the Council’s Transport and Development officer indicates that speeds in excess of this are often observed. However, but not expectedly, the queues at the traffic lights were Appeal Decision 6010686 2 significant and indicated that the street would be busy during the day and especially so at peak times morning and evening. 6. The proposal would replace the existing footway parking spaces with a vehicular crossover and dropped Kerb in front of No.29. Whilst this would allow access to off street parking in front of No.29, from the information that is available, and from my site visit and plans provided it does not appear possible for a vehicle to manoeuvre off street to both access and exit the proposed off street parking in a forward direction. The appellant has not submitted any vehicular tracking plans showing that such a manoeuvre would be possible for any size of car. 7. In accordance with the guidance given in the Government’s Manual for Streets (2019) and the Council’s Design and Development Control Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), vehicle accesses onto London Distributor Roads are expected to have sufficient space within the front curtilage to enable a vehicle to satisfactorily turn around to exit and re-join the highway in a forward direction. I find that such a manoeuvre has not been satisfactorily demonstrated or evidenced as being possible on the proposed parking space that would be created at No.29. This would be in conflict with Section 5 of the SPD. 8. The appellant has argued that the proposed parking arrangement would be safer than existing and makes mention of local vehicle collisions and parking congestion. However, I have not been provided with any specific information on the collisions record in this location, including exact location, timing, type, causes and seriousness of each event. 9. Whilst the existing footway parking in front of No.29 would require a vehicle to manoeuvre into the parking space, this would not require the vehicle to cross the footway between the parking space and No.29 that is used by pedestrians. As such, the existing footway parking provides for greater visibility of the carriageway and footway for the driver of a vehicle manoeuvring into or out of it, compared to the manoeuvring required to access and exit the off street parking between other vehicles parked on the footway. Especially as the appeal site sits on the outside of a sweeping bend in the street. The same would be true for the more limited visibility of a manoeuvring vehicle by drivers of passing vehicles and pedestrians in the proposed circumstances. 10. This limited visibility would be especially the case with a vehicle reversing out of the proposed off street parking space, across the footway and between parked cars on the footway. As such the proposal would result in a less safe parking arrangement than existing for both pedestrians on the footway and motorised vehicle users and cyclists using the carriageway and would lead to greater risk to road safety. 11. The appellant has drawn my attention to other off street parking arrangement, including those with dopped kerbs. As I have noted above, the planning status of these has not been provided to me. Where there is a dropped kerb that has planning permission in the immediate local area, this would have been considered on its own individual merits. I have done likewise in my consideration of the appeal proposal, which is a main tenet of the planning system. I have therefore only given limited weight in my considerations to the existence of the other off street parking spaces, with and without dropped kerbs. Appeal Decision 6010686 3 12. The appellant has argued that the proposal would allow them to access a future potential electric vehicle charging point at No.29, rather than using commercially available charging elsewhere. As this would be a primarily private potential benefit and planning proposals are generally considered in terms of public benefit, I have given this only limited weight in my considerations. 13. The appellant has set out their concerns with regard to communication with the Council during the planning application process. There are, however, other procedures in place that relate to such matters, and these are not for me to consider as part of this appeal. 14. For the reasons given above the proposal would result in substantial harm to public safety, which would not accord with Polices SP10, DP,23 and DP24 of the Local Plan (2023), Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Collectively these seek development that would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Conclusion 15. The appeal is dismissed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR