vehicle crossover

TrEvOrTrEvOr

I applied for a dropped kerb/vehicle crossover at my current home on a classified road by a bus stop in South London, where there is a hardstanding that has been in use for parking by up to 5 cars at a time for the last 23 years, and where the council had previously offered to install a vehicle crossing several times but, for reasons of which I am unaware, the owner at the time had not taken up the offer.

When they wanted to extend the bus cage in 2008, the Council had produced a plan which showed a 'crossover unaffected by the proposal' at my property. The position of this is such that it shows it is a shared crossover with the neighbour.

Because my property is on a classified road I applied for planning permission, and proposed that the crossover should be at exactly the location the Council had shown already existed on their plan.

The council planning department issued a Refusal Notice. I then appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. 

There are numerous vehicle crossovers in the area which do not comply with the blanket policy of Highways and the local Council - there are crossovers at both my neighbours properties, both of which are nearer to junctions than mine is - there are even crossovers (which were cited in my Appeal Statement and the Planning Inspectorate's Decision Notice) which bisect bus cages in use by multiple bus routes and are used by multiple households on the far busier A-road 50 metres around the corner.

The Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State came and had a look.

The appeal was upheld and I now have planning permission!

In the Appeal Decision Notice the Planning Inspector specifically addressed, under Main Issue “…the effect of the proposal on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site and pedestrian safety.” He also states that the proposed development would not conflict with local planning policies.

However, when I applied to the local Highways department they issued another Refusal Notice.

Apart from the bus cage, there are red lines extending in front of the property. These lines have been extended since 2019, without notification to residents, so that they now completely cover the front of my property. By viewing photo evidence on GS, one can see they were much shorter between 2008 and 2019 - apparently allowing access at the location of the 'crossover unaffected by the proposal' on the Council plan.

I then tried contacting TfL with the Planning Permission because I assumed it is on their red route. They seemed to accept this. They sent me their application form and were in the process of preparing a quotation for doing the work, only then to declare that they had just noticed that, although red lines extend in front of the property, it is not in fact on the TLRN and therefore it is the local council who are the Highway Authority.

Meanwhile, having been refused by Highways, I complained to the Council - but got no response. I then appealed to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. They accepted my case for consideration and took representations from the Council and me. In their letter to the LGSCO the Council stated they are “...seeking advice on how the Planning Act and Highways Act interact in an instance of this nature. Specialist Planning legal advice has been sought and we are still awaiting the outcome of this advice”.

However, I have now had a Final Decision from the LGSCO which upholds the Council's position.

Not sure if it's worthwhile but I might try speaking to a solicitor. 

Thanks for reading this! I would welcome any suggestions! The planning permission runs out in December 2025.

Section62

TrEvOrTrEvOr said:

However, when I applied to the local Highways department they issued another Refusal Notice.

Apart from the bus cage, there are red lines extending in front of the property. These lines have been extended since 2019, without notification to residents, so that they now completely cover the front of my property. By viewing photo evidence on GS, one can see they were much shorter between 2008 and 2019 - apparently allowing access at the location of the 'crossover unaffected by the proposal' on the Council plan.

I then tried contacting TfL with the Planning Permission because I assumed it is on their red route. They seemed to accept this. They sent me their application form and were in the process of preparing a quotation for doing the work, only then to declare that they had just noticed that, although red lines extend in front of the property, it is not in fact on the TLRN and therefore it is the local council who are the Highway Authority.

[quote trimmed to save space]

It sounds like you are on what is known as a "GLA Side Road".  These are roads where the local borough council is the highway authority, but TfL are the Traffic Authority.  The roads were defined as such in "GLA Side Road Orders" which were created when the GLA was formed.  TfL subsequently went through a tidying up process making revised GLA Side Road Orders because the extent of the red lines on the road didn't match what was stated in the original order.

You need to find the current GLA Side Road Order that applies to your street and see a) when it was last amended and b) what the extent of the designation is (i.e. usually the distance in metres from the kerbline of the GLA road)

The red lines shouldn't have been extended unless that was what was defined in the relevant GLA Side Road Order (at the time), and the order shouldn't have been amended without residents being made aware (usually via a street notice rather than individual letters).

The traffic authority and highway authority are separate functions.  The provision of dropped kerbs is a highway authority function, therefore it would be dealt with by the borough council.

Does the "Refusal Notice" (BiB in your quoted post) state what legal power it is issued under - the exact power, not something wishy-washy?  They will probably refer to the Highways Act 1980 Section 184 - but careful reading of this section will show that there is no power contained within it to issue a "Refusal Notice".  (Edit: they may "reject" a request" in accordance with a specific situation in subsection 17, but the specifics probably don't apply in your case)

Personally I would contact a solicitor, but legal action can be expensive and unpredictable and having spent a lot of money you may still have no crossover.  Furthermore in London the borough councils have additional powers to stop people accessing adjoining land from the highway, so your options are limited.  Don't go down that route unless you are sure you want to take the risk.

I suspect the ombudsman probably obtained legal advice on whether the planning consent trumped the Highways Act (it doesn't) rather than whether the council has the powers under S184 it claims to have (i.e. if it is just making up law as it goes) - in local authority jargon this is known as 'ultra vires', and I'd strongly suspect a "Refusal Notice" issued under S184 is likely to be ultra vires.  If the ombudsman didn't look into that point it may be something worth asking them to do now.

(note, I'm not a lawyer and none of the above is legal advice)

TrEvOrTrEvOr

Thanks so much for this extremely helpful reply! I certainly hadn't heard of 'ultra vires' and have nothing to lose in putting this point to the Ombudsman.

Here is some more info about my case:

After the Appeal Decision Notice of the Planning Inspectorate was issued I enquired about when the crossover would be implemented and the planning department replied:

"Now that you obtained planning permission you would need to contact vehicle crossovers in regards to the works.

The conditions just indicate the time limit and list the approved plans so nothing further is required from planning point of view.

Regards

Planning & Building Control"

I then phoned the Highways Engineer (who had called me from his mobile after I had emailed 'vehicle crossovers' after my initial planning application was refused), and he informed me that the Council were 'having a meeting today' specifically about my case.

In the ensuing emails I sent to the 'vehicle crossovers' section, they claimed to be unaware of any application for a crossover at my address (because I hadn't submitted an application directly to them and paid their fee).

Once I had done that, the ensuing Refusal Notice from the Highways, Transport & Regulatory Services department followed. It does not refer to the Highways Act 1980, but states (quoted verbatim):

"Application for Vehicular Crossing at: Above Location

I refer to your recent enquiry dated 29/03/2023 concerning a vehicle crossing to serve the above property.

An inspection has recently taken place and the application assessed against the Vehicle Crossover Policy. I regret to inform you that your application has been unsuccessful for the following reasons:

As per to minimum standard of section 2d or e, of the current policy.

d) Junctions – A proposed vehicle crossover must not be within 10m from a road

junction, (15m in the case of junctions on classified roads, A, B or C). A vehicle

crossover will not be permitted within the restricted zone as shown in the current policy.

This also applies to junctions with roundabouts.

Pedestrian Crossings – A proposed vehicle crossover or extension must be within 10m of any formal pedestrian crossing or refuge,

(including zebra crossings and signalised crossings such as pelicans and toucans),

e) Proximity to Bus Stops and cage, 

bus stop or a bus cage, as shown in 2e of the current policy. Additionally, it must not

encroach into or affect any zig-zag road markings, as shown in Figure 8, below.

Please note I have been to site and the proposed crossover would be within a

Bus stop/cage.

I am sorry that on this occasion the council has been unable to meet your request.

If one is not happy with decision as per the crossover policy. Please contact 

complaints..."

I should just point out that the proposed location of my vehicle crossover would not be within 15m of a junction, whereas the neighbour's existing crossover (which I require to be slightly extended to accommodate mine) IS within 15 metres of a junction. Also there is no pedestrian crossing within 10m (there is a traffic light about 25m away where there is a pedestrian crossing).

After I had lodged the case with the LGSCO (because I had been waiting for nine months without any response from the Council to my complaint) I received this apology and explanation from the Assistant Director of Highways:

"Dear ...,


My sincere apologies for not responding to your complaint in a timely manner. Your complaint is a complex situation however, this does not absolve our lack of response and I acknowledge that this is way below the standard of service that should be provided by the council.


For clarity the planning application process, even if it identifies the need for off street parking, is a completely separate process to the crossover application process. Both permissions need to be sought and one does not presuppose the other. I acknowledge that this situation has not always been made clear to the applicant and internally we have now improved processes to ensure this situation does not occur in the future. 

However, this does not resolve your specific situation. 
Your application for a crossover was refused as it does not meet the council policy requirements in that there is a bus stop directly outside your property. The planning permission was then appealed and the Planning Inspectorate upheld your appeal and approved your application.


However, as a council we do not believe that the Planning Inspectorate has the authority to make this decision regarding the crossover. It raises several issues for us as installing a crossover at this point would directly go against the councils crossover policy. Policy principle E states that a crossover should not be within 10m of a bus stop or a bus cage. This is for safety reasons for those people waiting, boarding and alighting from buses and it is noted that TfL, who operate the buses, also objected to the decision made by the planning inspectorate. The concern for the council is that if the crossover is installed the council would be liable, under construction, design and management legislation, if there were any incidents and this is a risk we don't agree we should be liable for.


The council is currently seeking legal advice on the situation and we are hoping for a response in the New Year.


Once again I apologies for the delay as ideally we should have taken action faster and kept you informed of our proposed actions.



Kind regards,

etc"

In their response to the LGSCO the Council made reference to the Highways Act:

"Council:

The council are of the view that the planning inspector has given a view outside of their remit by stating that the crossover should be implemented. The planning process and the highways approval process are two separate processes covered by different legislation. The council is of the view that the planning inspector has not taken into consideration the council’s responsibility in following the Highways Act 1980 and the duties around safety. There are also specific implications for the council under CDM regulations which make the council responsible for the design

implemented and therefore liable if any issues occur. There is a council policy (crossover policy) in place which clearly identifies safety concerns that are present at this location. Each case is considered on its own merits but the identified safety failures at this location are too high a risk to allow the council to implement a crossover. The council is seeking specialised planning legal advice to get a view on this specific case. It is acknowledged that the council should have acted more swiftly in this regard. A planning legal firm was approached in late 2023 and we are currently still waiting for a response from them. The council will continue to chase this.

LGSCO:

I have seen the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint dated December 2023, and the refusal notice. Both refer to the Council’s policy and refuse to proceed with a highways agreement. However, the Ombudsman usually expects councils to consider the merits of a case on its individual circumstances.

Council:

Cases are considered on the merits of each individual circumstance. In this case there are no extenuating or unusual circumstances that have been provided to LBS officers for consideration that would result in an approval for a crossover outside of the standard policy principles. The potential safety aspects not complied with under the council's crossover policy take precedence in this case and do not allow a compromise in this situation. It is recognised that the planning inspector has approved the crossover however, this is a very unusual situation. It is clear in the crossover policy that the planning process and the crossover application process are separate and not dependent on one another. A legal view is being sought on this.

LGSCO:

3 a. How did the Council take into account that the Planning Inspector had considered the same aspects of the crossover?

Council:

Yes the council did consider the view of the planning inspector however, as stated above, there is concern that the view taken by the planning inspector does not take into account council responsibilities concerning safety, as set out in the Highways Act 1980 and the CDM regulations. This presents too high a level of risk to allow a crossover to be implemented. It would also set a precedent that would allow decisions to be taken externally to the council which does not take into account all of the safety risks that would be present.

LGSCO:

4 b. What was the Council’s view of the Inspector’s conclusions on the individual issues set out in the appeal decision?

Council:

The Council disagrees with the inspectors conclusions on safety grounds of pedestrians which have been inadequately dismissed by the inspector and vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to bus safety issues which have not been considered by the inspector. The Council also disagrees under CDM and the management of risk for designers covered in those HSE regulations. It is also noted that the planning inspector has only made reference to planning legislation in his decision and not taken into consideration the council’s crossover policy or wider Highways

legislation."

In their Final Decision the LGSCO have stated that the Council followed their procedure and issued an apology for taking so long, so no further action is necessary:

"There was no fault by the Council in how it considered Mr B’s application for a vehicle crossover. It considered the

circumstances of the case, including that he had planning permission for the crossover. The Council took too long to deal with Mr B’s complaint and it has apologised to him for this"

Of course my issue with all this is that:

a) the council have offered to install a legal crossover at my property in the past (apparently before they changed their policy)

b) the Council have issued a drawing which shows there is already a crossover in use at my property, in the exact location that my planning application to regularise this crossover should be

c) that this has been cited by the Planning Inspectorate following their inspection of the site and, following due consideration of the representations by Highways and TfL, have asserted that there are no safety issues in terms of Highways or anything else. Therefore the Council are at no risk of liability.

d) that there are crossovers either side of my property which do not comply with the local Highways policy

e) that there are crossovers bisecting bus stops in the vicinity which do not comply with the local Highways policy

f) that there is a crossover within 25m of my property which also crosses red lines and is adjacent to a pedestrian crossing at traffic lights, and therefore does not comply with the local Highways policy

g) that the hardstanding at my property has already been safely accessed for 23 years by up to 5 cars at a time - for most of this time there were illegal flats at the address which the Council charged Council Tax on separately (so they received three tranches of Council Tax from the address) and therefore turned a blind eye to the use of the crossover. Since I have regularised the property to be a single family dwelling by removing the illegal flats the Council have increased the Council Tax to band E - yet they won't allow us legal vehicular access.

The Council have paid lip service to the concept of considering "the merits of each individual circumstance", but in reality have been allowed to disregard the history of the site and their own actions in regard to a crossover there:

- in issuing a drawing showing an existing one 'unaffected by the proposal' to justify extending the bus cage
- by themselves offering to install a legal crossover and in any case allowing its use for the last 23 years

They also seem to be using the excuse that allowing a vehicle crossover at my property will set an unacceptable precedent. This does not follow because there are so many specific circumstances relating only to this case which do not apply elsewhere.

Despite the wording they used in their Final Decision, IMHO the LGSCO, rather than considering my case on its merits as the Planning Inspectorate did, have hidden behind the fact that 'the Council have 'followed their procedure correctly' in reaching their decision. As they stated to me in their covering letter:

"We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome."

They have not addressed whether or not the Council's decision is actually correct.

Section62

TrEvOrTrEvOr said:

g) that the hardstanding at my property has already been safely accessed for 23 years by up to 5 cars at a time - for most of this time there were illegal flats at the address which the Council charged Council Tax on separately (so they received three tranches of Council Tax from the address) and therefore turned a blind eye to the use of the crossover. Since I have regularised the property to be a single family dwelling by removing the illegal flats the Council have increased the Council Tax to band E - yet they won't allow us legal vehicular access.

Before I reply on the other points, can you confirm the crossover you want is in the same position as has been used for 23 years, or was the hardstanding accessed in another way/from a different position?

Also, is it correct that there is no dropped kerb, so the historic access has been made by bumping up and over the kerb?

TrEvOrTrEvOr

Thanks for reading all that and replying !! and sorry for the terrible rant.

Please see the photos for clarification.

This is the current street view: there is no dropped kerb - primarily the hardstanding has always been accessed diagonally via the neighbours crossover shown on the left (but yes, cars frequently bumped over the kerb as well). I want to extend this crossover to where the lamp column is now (the planning permission includes moving the lamp column two metres towards the bus stop) - ie: in line with the garage door.

A current view of the hardstanding (neighbour's crossover to right of lamp column)

The Council's own 2008 drawing (edited), issued prior to extending the bus cage. Ringed in red, a crossover extending in front of my property 'unaffected by proposals'.

Street View in 2018. Red lines end at lamp column. Illegal flats in use and accessed via the white front door (as they had been since 2001).

In one of my last letters to the LGSCO I also offered (if the Council would agree to the crossover works) to extend the dwarf wall up to where my crossover would be (although the Planning Inspector did not include this as a condition) - to prevent anyone accessing the property any other way.

Section62

TrEvOrTrEvOr said:

This is the current street view: there is no dropped kerb - primarily the hardstanding has always been accessed diagonally via the neighbours crossover shown on the left (but yes, cars frequently bumped over the kerb as well). I want to extend this crossover to where the lamp column is now (the planning permission includes moving the lamp column two metres towards the bus stop) - ie: in line with the garage door.

What is the history of the garage?  Was it part of the original house, or part of an extension?  Was there a planning application for it?

From the limited view on your pictures I can't see any particular reason why (with the lighting column appropriately relocated) the location of the bus stop would create any safety concerns if you were to have a dropped kerb put in.  Did the council expand on their reasoning - either to you or the planning inspector?  I would expect the highways department to have submitted detailed comments in response to the application (and appeal), rather than just saying there was a bus stop nearby.

Councils (generally) use things like lighting columns and bus stops as reasons not to allow/provide a vehicle crossover - whereas what they should do (in compliance with the law) is consider the possibility such things could be moved (at the applicant's cost) if there is a genuine safety concern.

This is where ultra vires/maladministration/irrationality ('Wednesbury reasonable') comes in.  A 'blanket' policy of rejecting applications because they are close to a bus stop is probably unlawful.  Each application should be considered on its own merits and the decision has to be something that could be justified if challenged.  If the lighting column can be moved and the bus stop is only lightly used then I struggle to see how the council could reject the application on safety grounds alone. (the stuff about the council's duies under the Highways Act and about CDM is overstating the case).

As you've rightly pointed out, if the council's own plan for remodelling the bus stop shows the position of the crossover and that there is no need for that to be modified or stopped up, then they are vulnerable to the question why they didn't regard this as a safety issue at the time.

As access to the property has been ongoing for a long time (23 years) the council could simply check the accident records they hold (provided to them by the Mat and TfL) to see whether there have been any relevant incidents over that time.  If the answer is 'none' then they could record - as part of their CDM duty - that there was no evidence of a safety issue resulting from past use, and since dropping the kerb would have no material effect (in terms of reducing* safety) the design could be signed off on that basis. (*arguably dropping the kerb makes the situation safer than it currently is)

Grumpy_chap

AIUI, Highways would be a Statutory Consultee for the Planning Application. 
Can you review the details online to see whether Planning Department did, indeed, consult Highways Department? 
What comments did Highways Dept make against the Planning Application?

If Highways Dept accepted (or no comment) the Planning Application, then the subsequent Highways Application should be a formality.

TrEvOrTrEvOr

Section62 said:

What is the history of the garage?  Was it part of the original house, or part of an extension?  Was there a planning application for it?

The left hand part of the house (the bit that is red brick colour in the 2018 street view ) is the extension that had planning approval and was constructed in 2001, the garage was included in this. The right hand part is the original house. The extension actually had planning permission only for use as a dwelling for elderly relatives ancillary to the main dwelling house, not as separate self-contained accommodation. But as I say, it was used illegally as two separate flats with their own entrance (the white door), including an internal spiral staircase which didn't have Building Regs approval - but the Council charged Council Tax on each flat as well as the original house. They turned a blind eye to the access and use by up to 5 cars at a time.

Section62 said: 

From the limited view on your pictures I can't see any particular reason why (with the lighting column appropriately relocated) the location of the bus stop would create any safety concerns if you were to have a dropped kerb put in.  Did the council expand on their reasoning - either to you or the planning inspector?  I would expect the highways department to have submitted detailed comments in response to the application (and appeal), rather than just saying there was a bus stop nearby.

Yes, Highways and TfL both provided Consultee Comments. Firstly when my Planning Application was refused, and then again when I appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspector considered all the points raised by Highways and by TfL, upheld my appeal and granted planning permission. As I quoted in the last comment - the Assistant Director of Highways in her response to my complaint said:

"...as a council we do not believe that the Planning Inspectorate has the authority to make this decision regarding the crossover. It raises several issues for us as installing a crossover at this point would directly go against the councils crossover policy. Policy principle E states that a crossover should not be within 10m of a bus stop or a bus cage. This is for safety reasons for those people waiting, boarding and alighting from buses and it is noted that TfL, who operate the buses, also objected to the decision made by the planning inspectorate. The concern for the council is that if the crossover is installed the council would be liable, under construction, design and management legislation, if there were any incidents and this is a risk we don't agree we should be liable for.
"

Yes, as well as the vehicle crossover, moving the lamp column (at my cost) was included in my planning application and this has been approved by the Planning Inspectorate. But the Council won't agree to any of it.

Section62 said:

This is where ultra vires/maladministration/irrationality ('Wednesbury reasonable') comes in.  A 'blanket' policy of rejecting applications because they are close to a bus stop is probably unlawful.  Each application should be considered on its own merits and the decision has to be something that could be justified if challenged.  If the lighting column can be moved and the bus stop is only lightly used then I struggle to see how the council could reject the application on safety grounds alone. (the stuff about the council's duies under the Highways Act and about CDM is overstating the case).

As you've rightly pointed out, if the council's own plan for remodelling the bus stop shows the position of the crossover and that there is no need for that to be modified or stopped up, then they are vulnerable to the question why they didn't regard this as a safety issue at the time.

Well yes - thank you for seeing my point of view. Sadly, the Council have rejected it on safety grounds because it doesn't comply with their current blanket policy. They also claim that they have considered 'the merits of each individual circumstance' and the LGSCO haven't found fault in how the Council reached their decision. The LGSCO say that they have not been persuaded that there was a legal crossover in existence, even though the Council have shown a crossover on their drawing. So that means that for some reason the Council have drawn an illegal crossover that would be 'unaffected by the proposal' to extend the bus cage.

That doesn't make sense really does it.

Section62 said:

As access to the property has been ongoing for a long time (23 years) the council could simply check the accident records they hold (provided to them by the Mat and TfL) to see whether there have been any relevant incidents over that time.  If the answer is 'none' then they could record - as part of their CDM duty - that there was no evidence of a safety issue resulting from past use, and since dropping the kerb would have no material effect (in terms of reducing* safety) the design could be signed off on that basis. (*arguably dropping the kerb makes the situation safer than it currently is)

IMO this is an extremely relevant point, as are all your other points - thanks so much! I will also put that to the LGSCO. Unfortunately I think the horse has already bolted because they've sent their Final Decision to the Council and are unlikely to accept my appeal - but it's certainly worth a try.

TrEvOrTrEvOr

Grumpy_chap said:

AIUI, Highways would be a Statutory Consultee for the Planning Application. 
Can you review the details online to see whether Planning Department did, indeed, consult Highways Department? 
What comments did Highways Dept make against the Planning Application?

If Highways Dept accepted (or no comment) the Planning Application, then the subsequent Highways Application should be a formality.

Thanks for this comment - Yes, Highways and TfL were consulted did provide Consultee Comments and raise objections at the Planning Application stage, and they were notified at the Appeal stage. These were considered by the Planning Inspectorate and were referred to in the Appeal Decision, but they were not considered sufficient grounds to refuse planning permission.

At the Planning Application stage Highways said:

"The site of the proposed crossover is in an area of Red Route (TfL is the HA) immediately off the

A24 which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).

TfL has stated they are concerned about any proposal which may affect the performance and/or

safety of the TLRN.

The proposed location of the crossover is at a TfL bus stop and vehicles would have to drive

across the bus stop to use the crossover.

As stated by TfL, there are concerns that vehicles will not be able to access and egress the site in

forward gear and they will therefore have to reverse across the bus stop, and this arrangement

would endanger public safety, especially to any pedestrians waiting at the bus stop.

Additionally as stated by TfL the existing raised kerb outside the site is needed to allow the bus to

deploy its disability ramp and make the bus stop accessible to all.

There is no safer location in the vicinity to relocate the bus stop and TfL has made it clear they

can't support of a crossover at this location.

It seems clear that any application to TfL for a footway crossover at this location would be

rejected. LBS should therefore refuse this planning application on the basis of the reasons stated

above."

They incorrectly stated that 'TfL is the HA', when it is in fact the local Council. I pointed this error out to the LGSCO but they didn't seem to consider it worthy of comment.

At the original planning application stage TfL said:

Proposal: Provision of a dropped kerb.

Thank you for consulting TfL. With regard to the above planning application, TfL has the following comments:

1. The site of the proposed crossover is less than 45 metres from the A24 London Road, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).

TfL is the highway authority for the TLRN, and is therefore concerned about any proposal which may affect the performance and/or safety of the TLRN.

2. The site is on xxxxxxx, which has TfL bus operations functioning along it. The proposed location of the crossover is next to a TfL bus stop and vehicles will have to drive across the bus stop to use the crossover.

3. Having viewed the site on Google Street View, TfL has concerns that vehicles may already be accessing the site despite there being no existing crossover.

4. TfL has concerns that vehicles will not be able to access and egress the site in forward gear and they will therefore have to reverse across the bus stop. This arrangement would endanger public safety, especially to any pedestrians waiting at the bus stop, which is contrary to the Mayor’s Vision Zero approach to eliminate all fatalities and injuries on London’s transport network.

5. Further to the above, the existing raised kerb outside the site is needed to allow the bus to deploy its disability ramp and make the bus stop accessible to all.

There is no safer location in the vicinity to relocate the bus stop and TfL therefore cannot be supportive of a crossover at this location.

6. The footway and carriageway on the A24 London Road must not be blocked during the installation. Temporary obstructions during the installation must be kept to a minimum and should not encroach on the clear space needed to provide safe passage for pedestrians or obstruct the flow of traffic on the A24 London Road.

7. All vehicles associated with the installation must only park/ stop at permitted locations and within the time periods permitted by existing on-street restrictions.

8. No skips or construction materials shall be kept on the footway or carriageway on the TLRN at any time.

For the reasons outlined above TfL recommends refusal of the application.

This is the (slightly redacted) Appeal Decision notice that was issued by the Planning Inspectorate:

Decision 

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a vehicle crossing at XXXXXXXX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref xxxxxx, subject to the following conditions: 

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Plan of Existing Frontage (scale 1:100); Plan of Frontage with Proposed Vehicle Crossing (scale 1:100); Plan of Frontage with Proposed Vehicle Crossing (scale 1:50); and Location Plan (scale 1:1250) Date Produced 31 March 2022. 

Procedural Matters 

2. I have removed the address of the appeal property from the description of the development as this is not necessary and this provides a more accurate description of the development. 

Main Issue 

3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site and pedestrian safety. 

Reasons 

4. The appeal property fronts to the public footway and highway to the north-east. Within the front garden area of the appeal site, approximately two-thirds of its north-eastern boundary are open to the footway, which is commensurate in width with a hardstanding area, however there is no dropped kerb to the highway itself. At the time of my visit, a domestic vehicle was parked on the hard surfaced area. The remaining third of the front garden of the appeal site is enclosed to the adjacent footway by a boundary wall with hedging and the space thereafter is laid to an area of lawn. 

5. The appeal proposal relates to the provision of a dropped kerb to the public highway and a vehicle crossing point over the adjacent footpath to the north-eastern end of the appeal site. The location of such directly adjoins an existing dropped kerb and access serving the neighbouring dwelling. 

6. The appeal property itself is a two storey dwelling, and is relatively wide in its plot compared to neighbouring properties. At its eastern end the property has a garage doorway with accommodation above. I have been made aware of a planning decision dating from 2001, which indicates the garage as forming part of a wider extension to the property, this decision notice also includes reference to the ‘formation of access onto classified road.’ 

7. On the footway, directly outside of the appeal site there is a bus stop operated by Transport for London (TfL). The bus stop sign and timetable is fixed to a pole positioned adjacent to the section of the appeal site that is enclosed by the boundary wall and hedging. During my visit, I noted that individuals waiting at the bus stop stood aside the boundary wall. 

8. On the highway itself, double red lines which delineate an area where vehicles are not allowed to stop at any time, run from the road junction to the north-west to a point just beyond the north-eastern corner of the front boundary of the appeal site, thereafter, these lines continue as double yellow. A bus stop area is also delineated on the highway running the entire length of the appeal site. 

9. I have also been provided with copies of correspondence between the appellant’s late father and the Council dating back to 2000 regarding the potential for the installation of a vehicle crossing to serve the appeal property. Further, the appellant has provided me with a plan from the Transport Planning & Works Section of the Council delineating ‘Bus Stop Accessibility xxxxxxxx’ which indicates an area to the front of the appeal site termed ‘cross-over to property unaffected by the proposal.’ 

10. As the property has a garage; non-enclosed hardstanding areas to part of the front section of the appeal site; reference to the formation of an access onto the highway to the north in a decision notice from 2001 which it appears related to the garage extension; photographs of the parking area in use over time; alongside the various other correspondence provided through the submissions; it is evident to me that off-street parking and traffic movements onto the highway are associated with the use of the appeal site already in planning terms. 

11. I note that TfL and the Council’s highways officer have raised objections to the proposal and explain that they are concerned about a potential conflict with pedestrians waiting at the bus stop; the implications of a dropped kerb with regard to the deployment of disability ramps from a bus; and wider concerns about the limited manoeuvrability on the appeal site, which they consider would be likely to result in vehicles either reversing out onto the highway, or stopping and reversing back into the site from the highway itself. 

12. However, I am not convinced that the appeal proposal would lead to any significant conflict with individuals waiting at the bus stop, the stop is not in the same place as the location for the proposed drop kerb, the stop itself being sited approximately 5 metres away to the north, whereby individuals waiting for the bus stop, would in my view instinctively wait against the boundary wall to the eastern boundary of the appeal site, as I experienced during my visit. Due to the separation distances involved, and the available safe pedestrian stopping area against the boundary wall, I thereby consider that it would be highly unlikely that individuals would be positioned on the footpath, awaiting the bus, at the location of the proposed dropped kerb and vehicular crossing. 

13. Further, I do not see how the proposal would prejudice the deployment of a disability ramp from a bus, the proposal relates to a crossing point and dropped kerb for approximately one quarter of the site frontage, adjacent to an area of existing dropped kerb, the remainder of the highway closest to the bus stop pole itself would remain as is the case at present. 

14. I acknowledge that manoeuvrability within the site itself, to enable vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction would involve a number of movements, and this may lead to individuals reversing out or into the appeal site. But this is the case for numerous other properties along the street, including those to either side of the appeal property. Further, as outlined, the appeal site contains a garage with planning permission from 2001, reference to the formation of an access in the same decision notice and an existing hardstanding area. In this context, I do not see how the appeal proposals would result in a significant increase in conflict with users of the footway and highway. 

15. I find, therefore, that the proposed development would be acceptable, that it would not conflict with [Local Planning Policies], or any of the corresponding policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021. 

Conditions 

16. The standard time limit is required together with a condition listing the plans in the interests of certainty. 

Conclusion 

17. For the reasons given above, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. 

Section62

Words fail me.  I've had a look at the planning documents on the council's website and just don't understand how they have allowed this situation to develop. The situation involves one error after another.

Firstly, the requirement for a planning application (at sites on a classified road) is only for the formation of an access, the work within the highway (i.e. the construction of the dropped kerb and crossover) doesn't need planning consent because the highway authority have the power to do the work without it.

When you submitted your application in 2022 the council should have told you the work described in the application was on public highway and therefore didn't need planning consent.

Moreover, the thing you would need planning consent for (the creation of the access) appears to have been granted as part of the 2001 application - i.e. you already had planning consent for the vehicular access.

I'm not entirely clear what works were completed as part of the 2001 consent, and whether they were completed within the time limit.  But that is largely irrelevant because the access has been in use for over 20 years and therefore no planning enforcement action could be taken.  You could have applied for a lawful development certificate (LDC) instead of making a full planning application if there were any dispute about the validity of the 2001 application.

I don't understand why the planning inspector didn't pick up on this point (in fact it is making me doubt my own understanding of the relevant legislation) - they should have noticed that the proposed work* was wholly within the highway and therefore didn't need the consent you were applying for.  (*if you were altering the paved area and landscaping within your boundary then consent may have been required, but that doesn't appear to apply in this case)

I think I can now understand why the council said "...as a council we do not believe that the Planning Inspectorate has the authority to make this decision regarding the crossover...".  They are talking about work wholly contained within the highway which would not normally be subject to planning consent.  This isn't especially relevant, but as a comment in passing my understanding is that although planning consent wouldn't be required, there is nothing preventing you from making that application and the planning inspectorate deciding an appeal - the only requirement is that you notified the landowner/occupier that you intended to make the application.

The planning inspector's comments are valuable though, as they directly contradict the assertions by TfL and the highways team that use of the access/crossover would be unsafe.  The council's blanket policy of not allowing crossovers within 10m of a bus stop or cage should have been treated with a greater degree of flexibility than it appears to have been, in light of the inspector's comments.

In the planning appeal documents there is a letter with the subject line "Illegal Crossing of the Footway....".  The contents are something I'd suggest it would be best not to discuss on the public forum, but it would be useful to know the (edit: approximate) date that letter was sent and whether it was sent to you or to your father.

TrEvOrTrEvOr

Section62 said:

When you submitted your application in 2022 the council should have told you the work described in the application was on public highway and therefore didn't need planning consent.

Moreover, the thing you would need planning consent for (the creation of the access) appears to have been granted as part of the 2001 application - i.e. you already had planning consent for the vehicular access.

I'm not entirely clear what works were completed as part of the 2001 consent, and whether they were completed within the time limit.  But that is largely irrelevant because the access has been in use for over 20 years and therefore no planning enforcement action could be taken.  You could have applied for a lawful development certificate (LDC) instead of making a full planning application if there were any dispute about the validity of the 2001 application.

Thanks again! Actually the LGSCO pointed out to me that the Council have changed their website specifically because of my case, but it does state there:

"..Planning permission 

You don’t usually need planning permission for a dropped kerb. However, it will be needed if your property:

• is in a conservation area

• is on a private road

• is on a classified road 

• is on a Transport for London red route.."

- which is why I applied for planning permission (there were no works completed on a crossover that resulted from the 2001 application, therefore the planning permission had expired).

I do take your point, but if I had applied for an LDC wouldn't the Council (Highways) have raised the same objections? 

It seems highly unlikely, but If an LDC trumps the Council's Highways policy and the Highways Act - why shouldn't it be possible to apply for it now? 

The letter was sent to my father in 2006 I think - as you can see, the Council offered to construct a vehicle crossing at that time.