Appeal 6001656

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the application was determined the Council has adopted the Borough Plan Review (2021-2039)1, which replaces the previous Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Plan 2019. The Council mentioned this in their appeal statement and has provided the new relevant policies but confirms that there are no fundamental changes. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on the implications for the appeal but chose not to submit [name]. I am therefore satisfied that the appellant would not be prejudiced by my consideration of the appeal against the recently adopted relevant planning policies in reaching my decision.

On my site visit I saw that the outbuilding has already been erected in the position shown on the submitted plans, and that the previous, much smaller outbuilding has been removed from the site. The application is therefore retrospective.

I also saw various discrepancies with the submitted plans. Inside the main building I saw that the layout of rooms and their uses did not correspond with the submitted floor plans, which only covered the ground floor. The plans show a reception area at the front, 4 rooms labelled as treatment rooms (2 of which are slim rooms off the storage room at the back), a large waiting area to the rear of the building, a toilet and a storage area.

However, I saw 5 treatment/recovery rooms (labelled [name] 1-5) with the waiting area having been subdivided into 2 of these. The 2 slim ‘treatment’ rooms off the storage area were more like medication/preparation rooms and were only 1 Adopted 10 December 2025 accessed through a staff area and did not count towards the 5 treatment rooms I counted. The middle treatment room had been made into a small waiting area and the customer toilet had been relocated to the other side of the corridor.

According to the appellant’s appeal statement “Above the [name] are flats on the first and second floor levels” (para 9). However, this was not the case. The staircase from the reception area led to the first floor where there were a further 3 treatment/recovery rooms (with one room even labelled [name].12) plus an office and rooms for use by the Chiropractor, whose name was on the door. On the second floor there was storage. I was unable to go into all of the rooms as patients were being treated and the Chiropractor’s rooms were locked. A sign advertising the services of a Chiropractor was attached to the railings outside the building.

As the appellant’s appeal statement describes a situation that does not correspond to the plans, it is unclear when the internal layout changes were made. The layout I saw, with additional treatment rooms including a Chiropractor on the upper floors and no flats, is clearly different from that being described and against which the parking provision is being assessed. These changes could potentially have implications for parking requirements and parking provision at the [name] overall.

However, despite the discrepancies I have determined the appeal on what the appellant has applied for, namely an outbuilding in the car park to provide “storage of records and other items related to the [name]”2. For the avoidance of doubt I have based my decision on the submitted plans that show only a ground floor in use for the [name] with 4 treatment rooms, with no plans showing the upper floors, and an appeal statement that states the upper floors are in use for flats and that the parking spaces would continue to be shared with the flats. It would be open to the Council to deal with the situation that currently exists, which clearly differs from that described by the appellant.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway safety with regard to parking.

Plans showing the previous, smaller outbuilding showed there was space for 9 parking spaces. The new outbuilding that has been erected is bigger and extends across space that was previously used for 2 parking spaces. Submitted plans show the new outbuilding and the provision of 7 spaces, which has resulted in the loss of 2 on-site parking spaces. It is unclear how many such spaces the site would be to be accommodate if they were formally marked out and were the suggested minimum size of 2.5m wide and 5m long, and any spaces located adjacent to walls or fences should be 3.5m wide3.

According to the appellant’s evidence there are 9 full-time and 6 part-time staff, but only 4 staff come to work by car and need to park. The Council’s Parking 2 Para 12 of the Appellant’s Planning Appeal Statement 3 Nuneaton and Bedworth Council Supplementary Planning Document: Transport Demand Management Matters – [name] 2022 [name] also sets out in its Table 1 the starting point for determining parking provision for new developments. Medical/health services, which includes doctors/dentists, should provide 3 parking spaces per consultation/treatment room. Based on the submitted floor plans showing 4 treatment rooms, the [name] would require 12 parking spaces. Even if parking spaces were provided in a tandem fashion for staff to the side of the building, as suggested by the appellant to make 9 spaces, the overall provision is still less than the parking standards would suggest.

That said, the [name] already exists, even if it has substandard parking provision based on the submitted layout. The proposed outbuilding would provide ancillary storage and office space – not additional treatment/consulting rooms and would not necessarily result in an increase in patient numbers. I saw that the outbuilding had 3 empty rooms, some with washbasins, and an entrance/circulation space (currently with a reception-style desk in place). Whilst the outbuilding is attached to the rear of the main building, there is no connecting doorway or access between the main building and the outbuilding – access to the outbuilding is from outside and from the car park.

Contrary to the Council’s view, I could impose a condition restricting the use of the outbuilding to ancillary storage and office use and not for any treatment/consulting rooms. However, a condition would not address the parking issues which the outbuilding has exacerbated.

At the time of my arranged site visit, the car park was empty save for 2 customers who drove away, and another customer who arrived and parked towards the end of my visit. There were no other cars, suggesting that no staff had parked or needed to park in the car park itself for the duration of my visit that day. [address], there were 2 cars parked half on the road and half on the pavement outside the [name] close to the junction with [address].

The appellant includes an aerial photograph, showing the previous, smaller outbuilding and cars parked on that day. There were 6 along the fence, 2 beside the outbuilding and potentially 4 spaces (2-2 tandem) alongside the building some of which could be for staff parking. 6 cars can also be seen parked on [address] alongside the site up to the junction with [address]. The Council’s Officer delegated report includes a photograph taken at another time with the previous outbuilding still in place. That shows 7 cars parked within the car park including alongside the back door, a location not shown as a proposed parking space, and a car on the road. The submitted photographic evidence from both parties, together with comments from the Highway Authority who visited the site a number of times and anecdotal evidence from residents of [address], indicate to me that the empty car park I saw during my visit was not representative of the general parking situation.

Furthermore, the appellant and submitted plans make no mention of how many flats there are and where residents park during the day or when the [name] is open to the public. The opening hours of the practice are 8am – 5pm Mondays to Fridays; 9am – 4pm on Saturdays, and 10am – 3pm on Sundays although I saw a sign in reception saying Sunday opening hours were 9am – 1pm. The appellant suggests that peak demand for parking spaces is during the daytime on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and the greatest demand for residents of the flats is in the evenings and at weekends. If residents parked during the evening and left their cars in place during the day or over the weekend, this would reduce parking for patients visiting during the long opening hours at the weekend.

The outbuilding has clearly taken up space that was previously available for use for 2 parking spaces, even if not marked out. The loss of 2 parking spaces in an already under provided facility would exacerbate reported parking problems. None of the parking spaces were marked out and none were reserved for flat residents. There were polite notices displayed asking patients to respect residents and not to obstruct driveways or pathways. From the various evidence, this is not always adhered to.

It is clear that parking is on-street at times. The first part of [address] up until the end of the [name] is tarmacked. After that it becomes a short cul-de-sac surfaced with brick paviours and serving a small complex of residential bungalows. Whilst the properties have driveways, the road is a shared surface with no separate footways and the front gardens/driveways extend to the back edge of the highway. I could see that as there were no pavements to mount, any parking on the residential part of [address] would reduce the width of the shared carriageway and reduce the ability for pedestrians to pass, although I accept being a cul-de-sac the road is not a heavily trafficked thoroughfare and traffic speeds are likely to be low.

Opposite the [name] on the other side of [address] is the [name] children’s nursery. At the time of the application there was some doubt as to whether it was in use, and patients had been observed parking there and walking across to the [name]. On my site visit I noticed lights were on and the nursery looked to be operating and there was a sign at the front stating the nursery site. The presence of a facility that would require people coming to drop off/collect small children throughout the day and early evenings would likely put additional pressure on the limited available on-street parking in the area, including [address].

There are double yellow lines around a short section of the bell mouth of the junction of [address] and [address], meaning that vehicles could park on the unrestricted sections and be close to the junction, with the potential to impede the flow of 2-way traffic, a concern expressed by the Highway Authority who report there have been a number of recorded collisions in close proximity to the site, although the exact locations are not shared. Reducing the number of on-site parking spaces would increase the pressure for increased incidences of on-street parking and increase the risk of collisions and impeded traffic flows and congestion.

There are no parking restrictions on [address], apart from yellow lines continuing from the junction bell mouth to the bus layby, and in the opposite direction zig-zag markings for the nearby Zebra crossing. The bus layby was in close proximity to the [name] and another bus stop for buses in the other direction was a short walk away. During my visit a number of buses passed me in both directions, indicative of a frequent service, such that patients could use public transport.

After the Council refused the application, the appellant undertook their own transport survey for a week between 13-19 October 2025 to ascertain what modes of transport patients used to get to/from the [name], and the average number of patients travelling to the practice each hour. The results indicate that the majority of patients came by car, followed closely by those who walked, as I saw the appeal site was located in a residential area, and those who came by bus, then taxis/private hire. Cycling was the least used mode of transport. The results showed that parking demand from patients did not exceed 4 spaces on any one day of that particular survey week, with an average of less than 3 spaces over the 7 day survey period. However, submitted evidence indicates that this is not always the case and there are times when parking spaces are more fully occupied and patients are parking on the nearby roads.

The Parking Standards SPD states that where surveys need to be undertaken, their scope needs to be first agreed with the Highway Authority to ensure they are undertaken in a way to meet the necessary requirements. This does not appear to have been the case. Although the survey offers a snapshot of one week in the year I share the Council’s concerns about the robustness of the survey.

Whilst the proposed outbuilding would not result in an increase in consulting/treatment rooms or necessarily an increase in patient numbers, it has reduced the number of off-street parking for the [name], which is already operating with inadequate parking provision. The outbuilding has likely increased pressures on the limited on-street parking in the surrounding area, with the knock-on effects of impeding traffic and inconsiderate parking, which is already occurring.

Accordingly the development is contrary to Policy HS2 of the adopted Borough Plan Review. This seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that where new development is likely to have transport implications, applications show how the development accords with the Council’s Parking Standards SPD and to ensure that impacts are not exacerbated and whether the proposal meets acceptable levels of impact on existing highway networks. It is also contrary to the Council’s Parking Standards SPD.

I am led to understand that a separate revised planning application4 has since been submitted for determination to replace the outbuilding that has been erected with a smaller one. That scheme is not before me and does not form part of this appeal. However, I notice from the submitted plans that the ground floor layout of the main building remains as per the plans for this appeal, with no plans showing the treatment/consulting rooms on the upper floors.

The development does not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.