Appeal 6000818

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:  the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance, and  highway safety with regard to whether adequate parking would be provided.

The appeal building is a large dwelling that is located within a predominantly residential area. The appeal site is located within a cul-de-sac with several other properties which have dropped kerbs and large driveways with a turning space also located towards the front of the appeal site.

The submitted information states that the appeal building would be staffed seven days a week, with four members of staff between the hours of 08:00-20:00, two members of staff between the hours of 20:00 – 08:00 and a manager during the hours of 09:00-17:00 Monday to Friday only. Staff would also be required to changeover between these times.

The above is therefore likely to result in notable movements to and from the appeal site, particularly at staff changeover times when there is potential for six movements to take place within a short space of time. [name] note that the appeal building is a large dwelling which could be occupied by a large family, the movements of a family would be more spread out throughout the day rather than concentrated during set times each day such as the appeal proposal.

I note that changeover times are proposed to be staggered but I consider that this would be difficult to control, with a condition unlikely to meet the tests outlined in Planning Practice Guidance with particular regard to enforceability. In any case, even with the staggered times, six movements over a moderately short period of time would still be notable in the context of the residential area and result in disturbance for neighbouring occupiers.

The above also does not take into account any visitors to the appeal site and while I note that the appellant suggests that these would be low, they would nonetheless add to the comings and goings and associated noise and disturbance for neighbouring occupiers. In combination, the comings and goings outlined, would result in a notable difference from those that would be associated with a dwelling.

While the environmental health team have not objected to the proposed development and the Council have not provided a noise assessment, this does not provide support for the proposed development, instead the Council have assessed the proposal on the submitted information before them.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance. It would be contrary to Policies SP1, SP34, DP1 and DP7 of the Local Plan Planning for Change 2012 – 2031 (LP) and Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that developments are of high quality design which minimises and mitigates against potential harm from risks of noise and create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The proposed development would be able to accommodate four cars within the driveway. A fifth car is shown to be accommodated within the driveway, but this is illustrated as blocking two cars in, which due to the changeover times, is unlikely to be practical or convenient to encourage use.

In any case, even if five spaces were available for use there would still be a deficit of at least one car parking space during staff changeover where there is potential for six members of staff to be at the property at the same time. A car would therefore be displaced onto the roads near to the appeal site with the potential for the turning space or an existing residential driveway to be blocked by a parked car.

I note that a space could be freed up once the daytime changeover is completed but it is unlikely that the staff member would leave to move their car onto the drive and if they did, this would only add to the comings and goings and associated noise and disturbance which I have already found is harmful. The parking facilities also take no account of any visitors to the property, which although the appellant suggests would be low, any visitors would likely need to park in the local area.

I am mindful that a condition could require the submission of a travel management plan which could promote alternative means of travel, but I am not convinced that this would be sufficient to control parking. I consider that the use of a private car would be most convenient for staff, particularly due to the strict changeover times proposed. Furthermore, visitors would unlikely use other modes of transport and I am also mindful of the flexibility that might be required for staff and visitors depending on care needs which would make a travel plan difficult to enforce.

I note that the highway authority has not objected to the appeal proposal and that the Council have not provided any independent highways assessment or parking stress survey. However, the absence of such does not provide support for the proposed development, instead, the Council they have based their decision on the information before them which indicates that there would be inadequate parking.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not provide adequate parking and would therefore harm highway safety. It would be contrary to Policies SP1, SP35 and DP1 of the LP, Paragraph 109 of the Framework and guidance contained within the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document September 2020 which amongst other things, seek to ensure that development should not result in vehicles causing highway safety issues.

The appellant has referred to other appeals in an attempt to justify their case. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

However, in regard to the appeal decisions1 provided, none of these had inadequate parking and while noise and disturbance was found to be acceptable for these appeal proposals the circumstances with each case differs from the appeal before me, particularly with the number of carers required which was less in each case.

I have had particular regard to the benefits that the proposed development would provide; in facilitating a home for children with needs and I acknowledge the demand for such uses. I also have no reason to doubt that the highest standard of care would be provided for future occupiers, however these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.