Two dropped kerbs in Powys: road context under TAN 18.

The two decisions

Both appeals were householder appeals decided on written representations, and both decisions are short. That brevity is itself informative: in each case, the inspector's conclusion rested on a small number of observations about the road, the likely manoeuvres and the scale of change. The policy framework was the same in both: policies DM13 and T1 of the Powys Local Development Plan, TAN 18, Manual for Streets 1 and 2, and Planning Policy Wales Edition 12.

Llanfair Caereinion: dismissed

The proposed crossing would open onto the B4389, which the inspector described as a busy road into the village. The inspector found that use of the access would be likely to involve reversing manoeuvres onto that road, and that visibility would be restricted by street furniture, the appellant's own property, fencing and planting. The fact that other properties have direct access did not justify the proposal, and conditions could not overcome the concerns (decision, paragraph 6).

The appellant pointed to a past parking use. The inspector did not find that decisive, noting that a public car park immediately next to the property, with no apparent restrictions, already provided parking nearby (paragraph 7). The effect on highway safety was found to be unacceptable, contrary to policies DM13 and T1, TAN 18, Manual for Streets and Planning Policy Wales (paragraph 8). The council's separate biodiversity objection was not upheld, but the appeal failed on the highway issue alone (paragraphs 9 to 12).

Crew Green: allowed

The property already had a front access and parking. The new crossing would give vehicle access to the rear garden from the estate road, near an existing turning head that would remain available for manoeuvring (paragraphs 7 and 8).

The inspector found the additional movements would be modest, the estate road lightly trafficked and speeds low, so there would be no material harm through collision risk or obstruction of traffic. A condition requiring vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear, as suggested by reference to Manual for Streets, was not necessary given the low speeds and small number of movements (paragraphs 8 and 9).

Several other arguments were set aside. Parking shown in the property's purchase documents did not of itself justify a new access in planning terms. The street works licence is a separate regime. Concerns about the precedent for the estate were given little weight. The inspector also noted that the council had not explained how the scheme conflicted with Planning Policy Wales or TAN 18, and found no conflict with their aim of safe streets for all users (paragraphs 6, 10, 11 and 13).

What separated them

The decisions are consistent once the circumstances are set side by side.

• The road. A busy B road into a village, against a lightly trafficked estate road with low speeds.
• The manoeuvre. Likely reversing onto the B road, against movements on an estate road with a turning head nearby.
• Visibility. Restricted by street furniture, fencing and planting at Llanfair Caereinion. No comparable constraint was identified at Crew Green.
• The scale of change. At Crew Green, the house already had an access and parking, so the increase in movements was modest. At Llanfair Caereinion, the proposal would create a new vehicle crossing onto the B road, and a claimed past parking use was not found decisive.
• Alternatives. An unrestricted public car park next door weighed against the need for the Llanfair Caereinion crossing.

Neither decision lays down a general rule about dropped kerbs or reversing. Each applies the same policies to the road conditions the inspector observed.

Points of interest

The Llanfair Caereinion decision gives the existence of other direct accesses on the street little weight. That is a common argument in householder appeals, and the decision illustrates why it seldom succeeds on its own: existing accesses may predate current policy, may have different visibility, or may not have been assessed at all.

The Crew Green decision is notable for the inspector's observation that the council had not specified how the scheme conflicted with Planning Policy Wales or TAN 18. Where national policy is cited in a reason for refusal, an authority should be in a position to explain the conflict in terms of the site.

A third Powys decision issued the same week, at Broom Bush near Newtown (CAS-04611-C8Q1B6), adds a further illustration. The Welsh Government, as trunk road authority for the A489, had sought a construction traffic management plan for a holiday let shepherd hut reached by a lightly trafficked lane. The inspector found no evidence of harm from works already completed, and that a development of that scale was unlikely to change conditions at the junction materially. The appeal was allowed without the plan being required.

Practical points

• Describe the road accurately. Classification, traffic, speeds and pedestrian activity were central to both outcomes.
• Show how vehicles will enter and leave. Whether a crossing would involve reversing onto a busier road, and whether turning space exists, should be set out on a drawing.
• Identify obstructions to visibility. Street furniture, boundary fencing and planting, including on the applicant's own land, all featured at Llanfair Caereinion.
• Explain the change from the existing position. Where a property already has access and parking, the modest increase in movements can be a material point.
• Do not rely on other accesses in the street. They carry little weight without evidence that they are comparable.
• For authorities: where a refusal cites Planning Policy Wales and TAN 18, the reason should explain the conflict in site-specific terms.