Appeal refused over 'dropped kerb' vehicle access at Jarrow home near A19 and Tyne Tunnel
Earlier this year, South Tyneside Council’s planning department rejected plans for a property in Chaytor Street in the Primrose ward.
This included proposals to create an area for “small vehicle parking” at the front of the house by removing a fence and creating an open hardstanding area.
The plans also included a dropped kerb to allow vehicles to access this area.
South Tyneside Council’s planning department refused the plans over highway safety issues, which included ”insufficient space” to provide a turning area for vehicles.
Council planning officers added the development would see vehicles reverse onto a main road and cycle lane, creating a” significant detrimental impact upon highway safety”.
Under planning rules, an applicant has the right of appeal if they are not happy with the council’s decision.
This was the case here, as applicant later lodged an appeal against the council’s ruling, and planning inspector David English was subsequently appointed by the Secretary of State to look at the matter.
After considering the appeal, the planning inspector dismissed it and upheld the council’s original refusal decision.
An appeal decision report published on September 30, 2022, set out the planning inspector’s findings and reasoning for dismissing the appeal.
This included the plans “introducing the probability of dangerous and unexpected reversing of vehicles onto the highway and/or vehicles stopping in the highway and reversing onto the site”.
The appeal decision report adds: “There are 30mph speed restrictions in place along the B1297.
“However, the overall impression I gained during my site visit was of a busy road used by pedestrians, cyclists, and a wide variety of fast moving commercial and private vehicles, including buses and articulated lorries.
“I saw that road signs in the vicinity direct traffic along Chaytor Street towards the A19 trunk road and the Tyne Tunnel which is nearby.
“Whilst I note the appellants comments on its status, this highway has the attributes of a well-used major route.
“Given the features I have described, the function of the road as a link to higher order highways, and the volume and speed of traffic I observed, it would be unlikely that highway users would expect to encounter vehicles reversing from private drives along this stretch of road.”
The planning inspector also acknowledged the appellant’s case that several streets in the area had vehicular accesses similar to the one being proposed at Chaytor Street.
However, he said these streets were “within established housing estates which have markedly different characteristics to Chaytor Street, being generally much quieter.”
The planning inspector’s report added: “I recognise that traffic restrictions along Chaytor Street allow for parking in the evening and overnight, but parked vehicles could impede visibility of cars emerging from the proposed access.
“I also note the lack of objections from neighbours, but that does not justify harmful development”.
The full appeal decision report can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website by searching under appeal reference APP/A4520/D/22/3299048