Vehicular access and parking at 75 Ramsgate Road, Margate

“Reason: The proposed parking area does not meet the minimum depth requirement of 6m in highway safety terms and is therefore likely to result in vehicles overhanging the footway, creating an obstruction and hazard for pedestrians; this is further compromised by the gradient of the proposed parking area.”

“Reason: The development as proposed does not provide adequate facilities to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear, to the detriment of highway safety on an A class road. The proposal is therefore detrimental to and results in significant harm to highway safety as such the proposal is contrary to policies QD02 and TP06 of the Thanet Local Plan and paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“The driveway has sufficient depth and width to accommodate one vehicle to the front of the property, however, as with the previous applications, KCC Highways has advised that a turning area is required in addition to the parking area to enable a vehicle to access and egress the site in a forward gear.”

“The proposed access design does not achieve adequate space for both the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, to enable them to access and egress the site in a forward gear. As such the previous reason for refusal has not been addressed, and the proposed access is considered to be unsafe, resulting in a severe impact to highway safety, contrary to Policy QD02 of the Thanet Local Plan, and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF.”

“Final comment: The proposed access sits roughly 40?m from a signalised junction on an Aclass road, where traffic volumes are high and driver attention is already focused on the changing signals and associated movements. Reversing from a drive into such an environment introduces a manoeuvre likely unpredicted by other drivers, increasing the likelihood of conflict with throughtraffic or vehicles queueing for the junction.”

“Manual for Streets emphasises designing streets to minimise conflict between users and to ensure safe, predictable movement patterns. Manual for Streets 2 extends these principles to busier roads, highlighting the importance of safely accommodating highervolume, movementfocused routes such as Aroads. Allowing reversing manoeuvres so close to a signalised junction would run contrary to these principles.”

“Neighbouring occupiers have been notified and a site notice posted. Two representations have been received in support of the application:”

“* Parked vehicles on road make the road unsafe * Delay to emergency services due to congestion * Ease congestion…”

“Planning permission is sought for the approval of the formation of vehicular access and associated hardstanding for the provision of 1No. parking space. The proposal would also see the removal of external stairs to the basement, the alteration of the front garden area to reduce the incline and demolition of a low wall between the path to and from the front door and the footpath.”

“The proposed front amenity space measures approximately 6.072 metres wide, 6.1 metres deep with the vehicular access 4.5 metres wide to the front boundary. In the previous application FH/TH/25/0954, the front amenity space was quite sharply sloped towards the dwelling rising to the highway which was sited as part of the refusal reason by KCC Highways, however, the plans submitted with this application will have a reduction in the incline of the slope as well as the removal…”

“1 The development as proposed does not provide adequate facilities to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear, resulting in an unsafe access on an A class road within close proximity of a traffic light junction, severely detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy QD02 of the Thanet Local Plan and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“When put to the vote, the motion TO REFUSE was AGREED.”