Appeal 6000969

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Peterborough City Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The application form states that the development was completed in January 2024. The Council have stated the works were completed in August 2024. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The effect of the development on highway safety with regard to the availability of on-street parking.

[address] is a mainly residential street with properties served by a mix of on-street and off-street parking. Representations from interested parties and the Council’s statement suggested there is limited availability of on-street parking leading to safety concerns. At the time of my site visit, at approximately midday, there were very few spaces available in the vicinity of the appeal site with cars parked on both sides of the road, although this is clearly a snapshot in time.

Amongst other matters, Policy 13 of the Peterborough Local Plan (LP) states planning permission will only be granted if the proposal makes appropriate and deliverable parking provision in accordance with the standards set out in [name] of the plan. For Use Class C4 - houses in multiple occupation (HMO), [name] requires one space per bedroom. There are six bedrooms shown in the plans for the HMO. The planning application form states that the former dwellinghouse had two bedrooms. [name] requires two spaces for two bed dwellinghouses. As such an additional four car parking spaces are needed in order to comply with the policy. The development includes no parking facilities and therefore does not meet the standards set out in the LP.

The application was supported by a [name] (PSR). The PSR included two overnight parking surveys, assessing availability within 100 m of the site and an additional [address] to the south-east. The surveys recorded an overall parking stress of 72.3%, with 15 spaces available across the study area on each survey date.

The Council’s statement asserted that a number of the spaces identified as available in the PSR were not available as they were in locations with access protection marking or were in front of dropped curbs and driveways. I was able to confirm this was the case during my site visit. As such the amount of parking available at the time of the surveys was likely to be significantly less. The PSR also advises there are abundant spaces available on [address]. However, this is some distance from the site and is unlikely to be sufficiently convenient for occupants to use.

Accordingly, the PSR does not provide reassurance in terms of the availability of on-street parking to compensate for the lack of on-site provision in accordance with the standards referred to in the LP.

The site is in close proximity to a number of services and facilities and public transport provision. As such, occupants have less need to rely on a private car. Additionally, cycle storage is proposed which could be secured by condition and may also reduce the need to travel by private car. However, the need for a car to access day to day services does not necessarily mean that occupants won’t still own a car. Whilst the likely tenancy profile may limit parking demand and the design and access statement indicates tenancy agreements will include clauses discouraging car ownership, there are no mechanisms in front of me which would secure whether occupants own a car or not.

The deficiency in parking provision, compared to the standards set out in Policy 13, will have adverse impacts on highway safety through increased frequency of indiscriminate parking in unsafe locations, leading to obstructions for pedestrians and vehicles and reduced visibility for highway users.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the lack of provision of parking associated with the development will be harmful to highway safety and is therefore contrary to Policy 13 of the LP. No evidence has been put forward which provides sufficient reassurance that there are no severe impacts on highway safety in light of the failure to meet the parking standards set out in the LP.

The development makes efficient use of existing housing stock and provides additional units of accommodation with energy-efficient features in an accessible location. The development also has the potential to support the local economy through the increased occupation of the property which is in proximity to employment areas. These benefits weigh in favour of the scheme, but they do not outweigh the harm identified to highway safety and the conflict with the development plan identified above.

The appellant suggests the property will be well managed which will limit the impact on neighbours. This only weighs neutral in the balance as there is no evidence this represents an improvement over and above the use of the property as a single dwellinghouse.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.