Appeal 6001070

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application was originally for a 50-space children’s day nursery with proposed additional parking at the nearby [name]. Although, it was amended to reduce the number of children to 30 and include 2 off-street staff parking spaces within the appeal site and that remaining staff and customer parking is proposed on the public highway. Therefore, I have determined the appeal proposal on the basis of the amended scheme, which is for 30 children and excludes provision of parking at the nearby plant nursery.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, and the living conditions of nearby residents, in particular regard to parking provision.

The appeal site is within a predominately residential area. There is an entrance to a secondary school not that far away along the road and Green Lane is on a regular bus route with bus stops nearby. However, Green Lane is not that wide and there are a number of houses along it that do not have off-road frontage parking and so, their residents rely on on-street parking. Additionally, there are some areas where parking is restricted along Green Lane, nearer to the school and road junctions.

While only a snapshot in time, I observed during my site visit on a midweek day morning at school drop off time, that there was significant congestion caused by parked cars, school drop off traffic and buses. I observed that some vehicles had to reverse, undertake difficult manoeuvres or wait for longer periods of time to pass along the road. This adversely affected the free flow of traffic along the road, particularly due to the amount of traffic, limited pull in spaces and the restricted width of the lane. Such congestion together with the existing road context and activities of some drivers has the potential to cause highway incidents.

Although two on-site parking spaces would be provided for staff and the appeal site is accessible by bus and other sustainable modes of travel for additional staff and parents, it is likely that most parents using the new nursery would predominately travel by private vehicle to drop off and pick up their child.

The travel management plan includes measures to restrict the number of children dropped off and picked up in any 15 minute period, along with other mechanisms proposed to manage and restrict child drop off and pick up times. The parking survey demonstrates that there is on-street parking capacity within a short walk of the appeal site, and some nearby properties have dropped kerbs which form natural pull-in points. However, the proposed day nursery would lead to additional parked cars and traffic movement along Green Lane, beyond those generated by the existing dwelling.

Even with a limit of no more than five children being dropped off or collected every 15 minutes, this could amount to approximately 20 additional vehicle movements to and from the appeal site during one hour of the school peak traffic times. Furthermore, based on the TRICS trip generation data for a typical nursery, there could be up to 22 additional vehicle movements in the PM school peak period. Such an increase in traffic in an already congested area would likely have a significant effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic in the area at certain times.

In addition, the row of houses to one side of the appeal site do not have frontage off-road parking. During my site visit, even after the school drop off period, I observed a number of vehicles remained parked along this part of Green Lane. This limits opportunities for pull-in points and on-street parking close to the appeal site in one direction. The parking and drop-off operations of the proposed day nursery would reduce opportunities for nearby on-street resident parking, placing additional pressure on existing street parking. This would particularly be a problem at school pick-up and drop-off times, even though the parking survey shows there is capacity in the local area to meet the new nursery parking demand.

Therefore, while proposed mechanisms seek to limit the number of movements and duration of parent parking, overall, I find the proposal would add undue parking demand and result in significant additional traffic movement in the local area. Consequently, even though there are no existing records of personal injury accidents and only two slight severity accidents recorded near the proposed nursery in the last five years, the proposal would adversely affect the free flow of traffic movement along Green Lane and likely harmfully increase the potential for highway incidents.

Nursery staff could use public transport and some parents may share travel to the local schools and the new nursery, walk or use other sustainable means of travel. Also, it is demonstrated that staff parking could be appropriately accommodated either on-site or on nearby local roads. However, it has not been shown that there are exceptional circumstances to justify lower parking demand for the proposal, particularly regarding child pick-up and drop-off facilities. Based on the evidence before me and my site observations, I am not persuaded that the proposed travel management plan would prevent harm to highway safety arising from the appeal proposal.

In view of the above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on highway safety, in particular regard to parking provision, in conflict with Policies AC2 and AC3 of the Coventry City Local Plan (December 2017) (LP). These policies respectively require development to mitigate and manage the traffic growth to ensure that it does not cause unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or highway safety problems and that, parking provision is assessed on the basis of standards set out in the LP. Also, due to this policy conflict, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CO1 of the LP, which requires proposals for new or improved social community and leisure premises to be compatible with other Plan policies.

In view of the above findings, the proposal would increase traffic congestion along Green Lane and reduce on-street parking availability for existing residents near to their homes. Also, the additional traffic and congestion caused by the new nursery, would likely cause increased difficulties for residents manoeuvring in and out of their driveways and parking spaces during busy times. Even though this would be during weekdays only and at limited periods of time, it would have a negative impact on parking and traffic movement for existing local residents.

Even with a travel plan in place, including measures to remind parents of good parking practices and to use sustainable travel modes, this would not guarantee such measures would be employed and maintained. Therefore, due to increased traffic congestion and parking demand, the proposal would likely cause disruption to the operation of the local highway and potential increased vehicular and pedestrian collision in the area. This would be detrimental to the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties.

Having regard to the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, in particular regard to parking. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy CO1 of the LP, which, amongst other matters, sets out that proposals for social and community facilities should have no material impact on neighbouring amenity.

The appellant has over 30 years’ experience operating a children’s day nursery elsewhere in Coventry, where they assert, they have good neighbour relationships and traffic has been managed effectively. However, I have not been provided with substantive details of this nursery, including its site context and operations to allow direct comparison with the appeal nursery. Also, while it is asserted that most UK nurseries operate from converted residential properties without dedicated parking, I have no substantive evidence of such. Therefore, despite the appellant’s assurances and experience and even though planning permission has been granted for a 20 child nursery and rear extension at the appeal site with associated parking at the nearby plant nursery, I have considered the appeal proposal having regard to its individual merits, including its site context and the evidence before me.

The proposed nursery would provide social and economic benefits, including job creation and help meet the demand for childcare provision in the local area. It would expand access to government-funded early hours entitlement to local people and has been awarded a government grant. Thereby, the proposal would support the local economy. I give moderate positive weight to such matters.

Subject to conditions, including acoustic wall insulation and management of outdoor space use, it is undisputed by the main parties that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbours in terms of noise or general disturbance. The scale and design of the proposed rear extension would be in keeping with the existing appeal property, which would generally retain its external domestic appearance. Also, the appeal site is not within a conservation area or an area at high risk of flooding. However, these matters do not affect my findings on the main issues.

While the principle and demand for this type of childcare in the local area is undisputed by the main parties and there would be some moderate economic and social benefits of the proposal, it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and subsequently cause harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, with regard to parking provision. In such circumstances, the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the significant harm caused by it.

In conclusion, for the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.