Appeal 6000834

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, taking account of access and whether a sufficient number of car parking spaces would be provided; and (ii) whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy.

The existing development is accessed by utilising a single width track which is also a public bridleway. Given that the bridleway joins the public footpath which skirts the bay, it seems likely to me that it would be relatively well used by the public. Indeed, while only a snapshot in time, I did observe several people using the bridleway during my site visit. Given the nature of the track, including its lack of width and not inconsiderable length, it is highly likely that where vehicles meet each other, difficult reversing manoeuvres would be required. Such manoeuvres would inevitably result in highway safety concerns for pedestrians. Moreover, even where vehicles are moving in forward gear, the limited width of the track presents difficulties for pedestrians. I experienced this myself during my site visit.

I acknowledge that there are several entranceways on the track which act as informal refuge areas for pedestrians. However, when travelling along the track at walking speed, these areas seem quite infrequently spaced and, as they are within the ownership of the respective homeowners on [address], it cannot be guaranteed that they will continue to exist in future. I therefore do not consider that the presence of the informal areas adequately mitigates the risk to pedestrians.

Paragraph 6.15 of the appellant’s Planning Statement confirms that the proposed development would result in an increase in the number of employees. It is highly likely that such an increase would also result in an increase in the number of vehicular journeys along the access track. Were this to be the case, then the existing risk to pedestrians would be exacerbated, thereby resulting in clear and obvious harm. While the appellant has referred to accident data which states that there have been no accidents in the vicinity over a period of several years, this does not mean that such incidents are unlikely or that the risk would not be greater as a result of the proposed development.

There is a community facility near to the appeal site which is utilised by the [name]. Some users of the facility would likely walk along the track in order to access the building. However, it is clear that the [name] would normally meet at weekends and weekday evenings, and as such, the potential for highway conflict with users of the appeal building is very limited. I therefore do not find harm in this regard.

With regards to parking spaces, the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (January 2021) sets out that, for Class E developments such as offices within [name], 2.5 spaces per [address] metres of gross floorspace should be provided. Based on the appellant’s calculations, the extended building would result in a need for 7.7 spaces. In considering the plans before me, it would appear that the proposed number of spaces would comfortably exceed that requirement. On that basis, it would seem to me that the development would provide an adequate number of parking spaces.

I do note that the Council has disputed those figures, particularly as it would appear that some of the existing spaces are shared with nearby businesses. The Council has also set out that the size of the proposed spaces would be insufficient, although little detail is provided on this matter. Nevertheless, even if the Council were correct, and there would be an insufficient number of suitably sized spaces, I still find that there would be no additional harm in relation to highway safety as a result of this matter. This is because the site is in close proximity to numerous residential streets which have no parking restrictions, while there is also a large public car park a short walk away. As such, it is unlikely that any overspill parking emanating from the extended building would result in dangerous or inconsiderate parking patterns in the immediate area.

In summary, while I have not identified harm in relation to car parking provision or the neighbouring community use, I do find that there is potential for significant harm in terms of the inadequate access track and the possibility of conflict with pedestrians. As a result, the proposed development would conflict with Policies PP27 and PP35 of the Poole Local Plan 2018 (the LP), the relevant aspects of which seek to ensure that development is well designed and safe in highway terms, including by prioritising the needs of pedestrians before private cars.

Given that I have concluded that the level of parking provision would likely be acceptable, I do not find conflict in relation to LP Policy PP31 which seeks to protect existing boat yards. The lack of harm in relation to the [name] means that there would also be no conflict with Policy PP26 which seeks to protect existing community facilities.

LP Policy PP2 sets out the Council’s spatial strategy for new development. Part 4 of the policy states that the focus for meeting employment needs will be to direct new office development to Poole town centre, and by intensifying the use of allocated sites. Furthermore, Policy PP34 seeks to direct new development to the most accessible locations, principally the town centre, district and local centres, employment areas and locations along sustainable transport corridors.

The appeal site is not within any of these locations. However, the wording of the two policies clearly sets out that development will be ‘focussed’ or ‘principally’ delivered within such areas. Therefore, they do not categorically rule out the notion of providing such development in other locations. Paragraph 10.7 of the LP does state that, where development is proposed outside of the most accessible locations, it will need to be demonstrated that sustainable transport measures have been incorporated. In this instance, the proposal would deliver a suitable number of cycle spaces and electric vehicle charging points. Furthermore, the site is within easy walking distance of bus stops nearby. As a result, notwithstanding the inadequate access track, the site is in a sustainable location and I can therefore see no conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy.

Moreover, the wording of the policies refers to new developments. The proposal in this instance would be an extension to an existing business premises. Paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that decisions should create the conditions in which business can invest, expand and adapt. National planning policy is therefore supportive of the principle of enabling existing businesses to expand, subject to the consideration of other material factors.

On the basis of the above considerations, I find that the proposed development would be in suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy. It would therefore not conflict with [name] PP2 or PP34, the relevant aspects of which seek to direct new development to sustainable locations.

The proposed development would result in potential harm in relation to the inadequate access track. It would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole, notwithstanding that I have not found harm in relation to other aspects of highway safety or the site’s location. The extended business premises would have some economic benefits for the local area, while there is also potential for minor environmental benefits. However, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are likely to be limited. Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.