Appeal 3270021

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the appeal, revised versions of both the London Plan (the LP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) were published. I note both parties have referenced policies from the publication draft of the LP in their submissions which do not differ from those in the adopted version of the plan. I am satisfied therefore neither party would be prejudiced in my consideration of this appeal with regards to the LP. Parties were invited to comment as to the relevance of the revisions to the Framework and any comments received have been taken into consideration in the determination of this appeal.

The main issue is whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties and highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a place of worship located in a predominantly residential area. The appeal proposal seeks to vary conditions which sought to control opening hours and the number of visitors and staff at the premises. The effect of the proposed variations would see an increase in the total occupancy of the building from 150 to 330 people and opening hours extended by 30 minutes from Monday to Saturday and for special events overnight on 31 December, 1 January and a 12-day festival period in July.

These changes would mean a substantial increase in the potential number of people visiting the site for longer periods of time. There are a number of dwellings located in close proximity to the appeal site along [address] and [address]. Occupiers of these properties would be affected by increased conversational noise, disturbance from comings and goings and noise from the parking of cars and car doors opening and closing. Under the controls of the existing conditions, these effects can already be felt into later night-time hours. An extension thereto could only make that situation worse, encroaching further into more unsociable hours throughout the year, particularly during the weeklong festival in July. I do not dispute that the increased space within the building could accommodate the greater number of people. Although this would inevitably lead to more people coming and going and congregating externally.

I appreciate there are no current restrictions on the level of visitor or staff numbers at the site or opening hours. However, the proposal would significantly increase the intensity of the use of the site following the approved plans to extend the building. It is argued the increased space within the building could accommodate the greater number of people. This is not disputed, although this would inevitably lead to more people coming and going and congregating externally thereby exacerbating the harm.

There are existing sources of noise in the area, such as the auto repair and car wash adjacent, as well as vehicular traffic on [address], the flyover and from the railway line. However, these noise levels would likely decrease during evening and night-time hours when businesses close and commuter levels drop. Reference is made to other regulatory procedures and licence requirements to control noise issues, although I have only assessed those matters subject to the appeal based on the evidence before me and my own observations.

For the above reasons, the proposals would lead to harm to the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties with regards to noise and disturbance. This would be contrary to Policies DM1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies (the DMP) (July 2013) and D14 of the LP. These seek to limit the impact of a proposed use and activity upon noise, including hours of operation. In regard to this main issue therefore, conditions 11 and 13 are both reasonable and necessary to safeguard against this as far as is reasonably possible within the scope of their controls.

A substantial increase in visitor numbers, such as that proposed by the effect of the variations, would lead to highway safety issues related to parking and increased traffic. This would be caused by users of the building attempting to find somewhere to park their vehicle or stopping to drop off or pick up visitors. [address] is restricted by both double and single yellow lines on the appeal side of the road, while on-street parking here and on [address] is restricted to residents with permits. As such, street parking would be at a premium.

The appellant refers to the [name] (November 2017), but I do not have this information before me and references to footpaths do not address the matters subject to this appeal with regards to highway safety. Moreover, the Transport Assessment submitted in support of the approved planning application for the first-floor extension has not been updated to provide clarity on the matters at hand. On my site visit, I observed traffic levels were high even during the daytime outside of traditional rush hour times and there was little on-street parking available.

With the above in mind, due to the substantial increase in the capacity of the premises, the variation to the conditions would lead to a harmful effect on highway safety with specific regard to the availability of car parking and how an additional strain thereon could detrimentally affect the free flow of traffic. Accordingly, these conditions are reasonable and necessary to ensure this does not come to pass. As well as ensuring that the proposed development would comply with Policies DM1, DM43 and DM46 of the DMP, T4 and T6 of the LP and AAP19 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan. These advise, among other things, that proposals which fail to satisfactorily mitigate the transport impacts of development will be resisted.

[name] appreciate financial viability of the approved first floor extension may be contingent on an increased number of visitors and opening hours, this is not relevant to my determination of the appeal. Moreover, I have no substantial information on this matter before me. As such I have had regards only to the planning merits of the proposal as they have been presented to me.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the conditions are reasonable and necessary to control the matters subject to this decision. Further, they ensure the development would accord with the policies I have cited. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.