Formation of vehicle crossover; and installation of a dropped kerb

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2026 By G Powys Jones FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013278 162 Norwood Road, Southall, UB2 4JS • 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 Muhammad Rafiq against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing. • The application Ref is 261358HH. • The development proposed is formation of vehicle crossover; and installation of a dropped kerb. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural and preliminary matters 2. The Council’s description of the proposal as used in its decision notice has been adopted since it more fully and accurately describes the proposal. 3. The property is located within the Norwood Green Conservation Area (CA). The Council does not raise a heritage objection, and I share its view and the reasons for not objecting on this score. Main Issue 4. This the effect of the proposal on pedestrian safety. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a dwelling forming part of a short terrace of residential properties on the southern frontage of Norwood Road (A3005), a busy thoroughfare. The two properties at either end of the terrace have a parking facility in their front gardens accessed by means of crossovers. The two central houses have no parking facilities on-site, and the appellant proposes providing such a facility in front of his house. The whole of the front garden is currently hard surfaced. 6. The Council states in its sole reason for refusal that ‘...the application fails to identify the presence of the guardrail or assess its function.’ This is a reference to a lengthy guardrail which is sited on the edge of the footway, partly in front of the appeal property and adjacent to a light controlled pedestrian crossing. However, whilst the originally submitted drawings did not show the guardrail, it is shown on Appeal Decision 6013278 2 Drawing Ref 162NR-301-01P21, a drawing submitted during the Council’s consideration of the application. 7. It appears to me that this drawing was submitted in response to comments raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer on being consulted relating to landscaping and boundary definition. The drawing shows the proposed car space next to the boundary wall shared with No 160, at right angles to the carriageway. It shows pedestrian visibility splays either side; a dwarf wall to be erected along the remainder of the front garden’s frontage, with soft landscaping proposed behind the dwarf wall and alongside the boundary shared with No 164. 8. I am reasonably experienced in reading drawings, and what the drawing conveys to me is that it is intended that any car in the car space shown would be driven in and out of the space at right angles to the carriageway using a cross over yet to be formed. If that were the case, a substantial section of the guardrail would need to be removed. 9. However, the appellant claims that is not the case. He maintains that the intention is to utilize the gap between the traffic light post and the guardrail for the most part, and that only a small section of the guardrail would be removed. If this were the case, to enter or leave the site, any car intending to use the space depicted on the drawing would need to be manoeuvred awkwardly diagonally along the footway, to avoid the dwarf wall. 10. The guardrail performs an obvious safety function - that of separating pedestrians from traffic. During my visit, around lunchtime, I saw that the pedestrian crossing was in regular use. I also saw that just along from the appeal property at the end of the short terrace is the entrance to Wolf Fields Primary School. Alongside its main vehicular entry gates are two pedestrian gates. I strongly suspect that the guardrails are in place in part to protect primary aged children, particularly those using the pedestrian crossing, as they walk to and from school. 11. To my mind, the vehicular manoeuvres arising from the appellant’s proposal depicted in the drawing referred to, as I interpret it, or as the appellant interprets it, would both put pedestrian safety at risk, including that of small children. Such manoeuvres2 would interfere with the safe use of the footway and pedestrian crossing. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policy T4 of the London Plan (LP) and policy 1.1 of the Ealing Core Strategy requiring Ealing to be a safe place to live and for development proposals not to increase road danger. 12. Judging from the content of the officer report, it appears to me that the appellant is probably justified in contending that his medical conditions were not fully considered by the Council in arriving at its decision. In this regard, a letter from his doctor has been produced, which lists his medical problems, diets and medications. I therefore understand the reasons why the appellant would ideally wish to have a parking facility close to his front door. However, his personal circumstances need to be balanced against the risks and potential danger arising to pedestrians, including small children, which would arise if this proposal were permitted. 13. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, but the risks and potential danger caused by the 1 This drawing is listed in the Council’s decision notice. 2 And the removal of a lengthy section of guardrail on my interpretation of the drawing Appeal Decision 6013278 3 proposal outweigh its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of impairment and/or disability. 14. I therefore conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal since I find the proposed development would dangerously put the safety of pedestrians, including small children, at risk. 15. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR