Appeal 3369654

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the appeal form differs from that on the planning application form and on the Council’s decision notice. Given that the appeal form indicates that the description of development has not changed, I have used the description from the planning application form which also sets out a more specific description of the proposed development.

[name] visited the site I saw that it is already in use for car parking and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed operations on the highway network.

The appellant is seeking to vary Condition 3 of 24/00625/FUL which restricts operations solely to a park-and-ride model and prohibits meet-and-greet services, noting that it would like to be able to make full meet-and-greet use of the site and that the condition is unnecessarily restrictive, disproportionate and inconsistent with the approach taken by the Council where other sites have been granted more flexible permissions.

Notwithstanding that I have not been provided with details of those other permissions or of the particular circumstances of those sites, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits, also having regard to any supporting evidence.

Whilst the Council has said that meet-and-greet services would result in a significant increase in trips and that cruise-related traffic can coincide with network peaks, the appellant has noted it would reduce passenger traffic to and from the port. It has also said that the Council’s model is theoretical and does not reflect the controlled nature of this operation, and that there is no evidence of harm to highway safety, residential amenity, or the local network. It has said that the proposal would reduce passenger traffic to and from the port terminal, would help to alleviate port-side congestion through off-site management, and that a more balanced approach would be to allow meet-and-greet with operational controls such as management plans and monitoring.

However, the appellant has not provided any details of how a meet-and-greet service would operate or the effect of this on the highway network, including in terms of the number of trips, the number of trips associated with the current and previous uses on the site to enable a comparison to be made, or any other evidence to demonstrate that the Council’s assumptions and conclusions, which are based on its knowledge of the city’s highway network, should not be relied upon.

Furthermore, it has not provided a copy of the approved [name] (Parking) and Operational Management Plan, details of how staff are trained to reduce congestion, or a copy of any revised or new operational controls in relation to its meet-and-greet proposals. Therefore, I am unable to determine whether a management scheme could allay concerns relating to any increase in traffic movements. Similarly, whilst the appellant has stated that the site already operates in accordance with industry and local authority standards, it has not provided any details of these or explained whether they relate to traffic.

Therefore, on the basis of the information that has been provided, I am unable to conclude that the proposed variation of Condition 3 would accord with Policy CS18 of the Southampton City Council Core Strategy (amended March 2015) which seeks patterns and forms of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

The appellant has said that meet-and-greet is essential to the cruise industry and its customers in Southampton, that the appeal scheme would meet rising local demand, would support economic activity linked to the local cruise industry, that restricting meet-and-greet reduces passenger choice and risks pushing demand to unauthorised operators, that there is no evidence of harm to highway safety or residential amenity, and that Condition 3 has adversely impacted business activities at the site. However, no evidence has been provided to support any of these arguments.

The appellant has noted that meet-and-greet is particularly important for elderly passengers, those with mobility issues, and families with luggage. It has also said that the current restriction has prevented full use of the site and that the appeal scheme would be a sustainable and efficient use of previously-developed land. Whilst these are matters to which I attach some weight, they do not outweigh the conflict with development plan policy that I have identified above.

The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.