Appeal 6001964

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effects of the proposed development on highway safety with particular reference to vehicular parking.

The appeal premises is located on the corner of [address] and [address]. [address] is a short cul-de-sac located near the retail core of the town. The area is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial premises. Parking restrictions are in place along [address] and many of the nearby roads.

During my afternoon site visit, which I recognise is a snapshot in time, I saw much indiscriminate parking on restricted parts of [address], and roads close by. This included parking on the footway, corners, near junctions and on both sides of [address]. This is despite available parking further afield and potential enforcement of the parking restrictions. This aligns with the concerns expressed by the Council from its experience of the area.

I saw that this parking was already prejudicial to highway safety by, amongst other things, restricting visibility and space at corners and junctions and along the roads. In this regard, increasing the pressure for parking in this immediate area has the potential to exacerbate an existing problem irrespective of the availability of parking elsewhere as indicated in the appellant’s parking beat survey.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would not accord with the Council’s parking standards set down in [name] of its Delivery and Allocations Local Plan (2022) (DALP). These standards already differentiate between town centre and non-town centre locations. As such, the central location of the appeal site is already considered within the parking standards. Even if I accept the appellant’s position regarding car ownership levels and the flexibility with the use of the parking standards there would still, based on the appellant’s 2023 [name] be a parking demand of 4-5 cars.

[name] accept that increasing the enforcement of the parking restrictions might reduce instances of indiscriminate parking, the appeal proposal would ultimately increase the pressure in an already challenging area. Should a number, of the residents or their visitors have a car, the absence of appropriate car parking spaces in the street would encourage parking practices in inopportune locations. This is because, for convenience, residents and visitors might wish to park their car nearby.

As a result, the proposal would exacerbate an existing issue and there is the potential for further inappropriate parking. This for example could, amongst other things, impede the turning and manoeuvring of vehicles in the street resulting in vehicles reversing out into [address] due to a lack of available space. In this regard, even applying the parking standards flexibly and considering the proposed cycle parking, and location of the site, the proposal would not be conducive to securing good levels of highway safety.

In conclusion, the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety with particular reference to vehicular parking. As such, I find conflict with the requirements of Policies GR1, GR2 and C2 of the DALP, when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that all development must provide an appropriate level of safe, secure, accessible and viable parking, taking into account, amongst other things, the type, mix and use of development, and the availability of on-street parking or shared parking facilities.

I have been referred to a fallback position for two six-bedroom flats at the appeal premises. However, the number of visitors associated with 12 individual unrelated HMOs would, in my view, be greater than associated with two households occupying the two flats where linked trips and shared vehicles would be more likely, even if the number of bedrooms is the same. In my view, the effect on parking in the immediate area and the subsequent impact on highway safety from this fallback position would not be as substantial as the proposal before me. Moreover, whilst I’m told that other sites elsewhere have had parking standards relaxed. My concerns are not the principle of relaxing parking standards but the specific location of the appeal site and the implications for indiscriminate on street parking in this specific location. The absence of harm in relation to any other matters weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with that plan.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.