Appeal 6001966

The appeal is dismissed.

The lengthy description of the development provided on the planning application form has been replaced by an amended version on the decision notice. I consider that subsequent description to accurately represent the proposal and in the interests of conciseness I have therefore used it within this decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with due regard to the Epperstone Conservation Area.

The proposal relates to the use of an outbuilding as a pilates studio. The appellant proposes that there would be 5 classes per day during the week, with 3 classes on a Saturday. The maximum number of visitors to the site would be 6, although that includes an external instructor if required. Access to the studio would use the existing vehicular access from [site address] , which leads from the highway to the appeal site via a single-track driveway.

The proposal would result in a significant increase in traffic movements compared to the existing use of the access. The limited width of the access track to the site would prevent vehicles passing each other, with the result that vehicles entering the site may have to reverse out of the access onto the highway to enable other vehicles to leave the site. The appellant specifies that there would be a gap between classes to enable vehicles to enter and leave without conflict. However, there is no certainty the vehicles would arrive or depart on time, and given the turnover of customers of the business there is a significant possibility that conflicts could occur along the access track, with resulting awkward vehicle movements at the access point. In turn, such manoeuvres would lead to an increased risk of collisions with other highway users.

Reference has been made to the County Council’s Highway Design Guide, and the appellant emphasises that this states that there is no minimum carriageway width for commercial premises of the type proposed. However, the access should still be fit for purpose. Reference has also been made to the criteria for shared private drives, although given the commercial nature of the proposal I do not consider that these criteria are appropriate in this case. Given the potential increase in the number of traffic movements to and from the site I consider that the concerns of the Council and the Highway Authority in respect of the width of the access are well-founded.

Furthermore, the visibility at the access for drivers of vehicles leaving the site is limited due to the narrow width of the access and the proximity of a high wall at the edge of the pavement. Drivers of vehicles exiting the site would have minimal visibility of pedestrians passing along the footpath, with resultant harm to the safety of pedestrians due to an increased risk of collisions.

Passers-by may be aware of the potential for vehicles to emerge from the access, and the appellant refers to accesses in the village with similarly limited visibility. However, this does not justify a proposal which would lead to a significant increase in vehicle movements via an access which has limited visibility and does not meet modern access requirements.

The appellant has provided a revised car parking layout depicting [address] to the proposed studio. The Council’s Delegated Report states that it is considered that adequate parking and turning can be provided within the site. However, the Highway Authority in its comments on the appeal contends that many of the spaces would be unusable due to the layout of the site. This reflects my own observations, where 1 of the parking spaces shown on the revised plan would be in a courtyard and would be blocked in by other parking.

Furthermore, the relationship with parking for the existing dwelling has also not been set out, with the result that resident’s vehicles may be displaced onto the highway. Although a block plan showing 8 spaces was also provided by the appellant, it was not specified which of these related to the extant dwelling, and in any event many of these spaces would be blocked in by other vehicles.

The provision of the indicated parking spaces could be secured by condition. But this would not overcome the concerns relating to access to the individual spaces or the adequacy of the access track and the junction with the highway.

Given that there are no parking restrictions on [site address] in the vicinity of the site, vehicles generated by the proposal could be parked on the highway rather than having to enter or leave the site via the existing access. This would prevent the need for works to the access. Based on what I have seen and read, there is no evidence of on-street parking stress in this area.

However, were the proposal to rely on on-street parking, this would result in approximately 5 vehicles being parked on the highway on a regular basis. This would reduce the width of the carriageway on an approach to a bend, so that vehicles overtaking the extent of parking would not have an extended view of approaching vehicles along the highway, thereby increasing the risk of conflict with other highway users.

Furthermore, vehicles parked in this location would obstruct visibility for the existing access, and the Highway Authority refer to speed surveys to the east and west of the access which do not fall within the scope of ‘low speeds’ where some encroachment into visibility splays may be acceptable. For these reasons, rather than acting as a traffic calming measure as contended by the appellant, I consider that potential on-street parking generated by the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety.

The appellant refers to a limited number of 2 traffic incidents in the vicinity and that there are no pedestrian incidents recorded in the village. However, this does not lead me to a different conclusion in respect of the nature of the access or the effect of the parking and traffic movements.

Although the Council does not have adopted parking standards, parking matters should still be considered based on the circumstances of each proposal. This would include the provisions of the [name], which is a material consideration.

Reference is also made to potential conflict with access for a nearby public house. However, given the distance from the access to the public house and the likely number of vehicles generated by the proposal, I do not consider that on-street parking generated by the proposal would extend to a point which would obstruct visibility from the access of the public house. Nevertheless, that does not negate my conclusions in respect of the other harms to highway safety arising from on-street parking generated by the proposal.

The appellant refers to decisions in the village and elsewhere which they consider show that the Council and Highway Authority have not been consistent in their treatment of similar proposals. However, it has not been demonstrated that the circumstances of those cases are a direct parallel to the appeal before me in respect of matters including the existing use of the site, the nature of the highway and the number of traffic movements.

Reference has also been made to an appeal decision elsewhere in respect of the Council’s approach to the comments of the Highways Authority. [name] have concluded that the concerns of both the Council and the Highway Authority are well-founded, and I therefore do not conclude that their consideration of the proposal was flawed.

The proposal does not include works to the wall adjacent to the access. However, the Highway Authority have referred to the provision of a visibility splay as well as the potential widening of the access, which may be secured by condition. The appeal site is located within the Epperstone Conservation Area (CA), and the [name] sets out that the boundary walls contribute to the distinctive character of the CA, and are significant particularly along [site address] where they add to a strong sense of enclosure. The provision of a visibility splay and the widening of the access would diminish the contribution that the wall makes to the significance of the CA and would fail to preserve or enhance its character or appearance. However, given the scale and nature of the potential works to the access, the harm arising to the CA would be less than substantial.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets is balanced against any public benefits. I have had regard to the public benefits of the proposal, including the social benefits relating to the health and well-being of the community and the potential employment generated. However, given the scale of the proposal I consider that these benefits would be limited, and would not outweigh the great weight I give to the harm to the CA and indeed the harm to highway safety.

The Parish Council commented in support of the proposal. However, even given the local knowledge of the Parish Council, this support does not lead me to a different conclusion in respect of the harms I have identified.

Drawing the above together, due to the use of an inadequate access and car parking issues, I consider that the proposal would lead to unacceptable harm to highway safety. Although the design of the access may be amended by condition, the works required would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA, and the harm to the designated heritage asset of the CA would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the safety, parking and character requirements of Spatial Policy 7 of the Newark and [name] 2019 as well as the design requirements of Policy DM5 of the Allocation and Development Management DPD 2013. The proposal would also be contrary to the Framework due to its unacceptable impact on highway safety and the potential harm in relation to conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

The appellant has referred to [address] to the appeal site, including the “Pigeoncote in [address] Called [site address] ” and the “Pinfold, [address] [name]”. However, the Council has not identified any harm to the setting of these Listed Buildings. Given their separate character from the appeal proposal, and even allowing for potential works to the access, I consider that the proposal would preserve the setting of these Listed Buildings.

There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.