Appeal 6002020

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development from the application form. For the avoidance of doubt, a canopy in the rear parking area also forms part of the appeal before me. An Enforcement Notice was issued in respect of a jet washing facility to the rear of the site. However, this does not form part of the appeal before me.

Reference to “retrospective” in the description of the application is not a form of development. However, the application form confirms that the development has been completed and I was able to see this during my site visit. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (a) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with specific regard to noise, and (b) highway safety and parking availability.

The appeal site is located at the end of a row of shops, on an access road separated from the multi-lane carriageway of [site address] by a raised kerb. The appeal site consists of a 2 storey building. Part of the ground floor is a tyre fitting workshop, the subject of this appeal. The first floor is a residential unit. On one side, the appeal site is bounded by an access lane, beyond which is a vehicle repair and servicing garage.

During my site visit, the multi-lane carriageway was busy with traffic, creating consistent low level background noise. The access lane in front of the shops was also well used, adding to the background noise. Although my observations were only of a snapshot in time, it is evident that the appeal site is in a busy location, which brings a reasonably high level of background noise.

The appeal was supported by a Noise Impact Assessment by Sound Planning Ltd, dated 16 June 2025 (herein referred to as the noise assessment) which considered the impact of noise generated from the tyre fitting workshop on sensitive receptors, including the first floor residential units. The noise assessment predicted that the noise rating level from the tyre fitting workshop at the residential properties above the site is ‘low’. However, there are several limitations in its assessment to doubt the reliability of this conclusion.

There are multiple noise sources that derive from the operations within the unit, including the operation of an impact wrench, high-pressure air release during inflation and deflation of tyres, and loud popping noises as a result of tyre bead seating. Such noises experienced through a floor in the living areas of the residential units above have potential to severely impact on the living conditions of the occupiers and would likely be well above background noise levels and those that could be expected within a residential property.

However, the noise assessment only evaluated noise from the impact wrench as it considered that the other operations were not audible outside the property. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that this assessment was undertaken within the first floor flats themselves. Given their proximity, one would expect some noise to transfer through the floor which could adversely impact on the living conditions of the occupants above.

Furthermore, the noise assessment uses corrections for impulsive and intermittent noises. Given the nature of the noise arising from the workshop, comprising of sudden short bursts of loud noise at irregular intervals, I do not consider such an assessment would present a clear picture of the potential for noise experienced in the flats above. Short sharp bursts of noise can be as harmful to living conditions as high levels of continuous and regular noise.

Additionally, the noise assessment makes assumptions with regard to the floor construction separating the workshop and the residential units above. As such, any conclusions as to the noise experienced within the residential units may not reflect the reality.

The appellant has indicated that tyre fitting only takes place during the working day and could be limited to 2 or 3 tyres per day. However, I am not persuaded that the nature of the noise arising would not be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers who may be home during the day. Shift workers and those working from home would likely be particularly affected.

I acknowledge that letters of support from the occupants of flats 1, 2, and 3 of 411 [site address] , which were submitted by the appellant. However, future occupants may not be willing to tolerate the noise levels and substandard living conditions that would arise.

Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence before me, the development is harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with specific regard to noise. It is therefore contrary to [name] 1 and SPD 16 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) (Local Plan), which collectively seek to ensure that noise-generating development is not permitted if it causes an unacceptable level of noise impact.

The proposal would also be contrary to paragraphs 187 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework), which seek to ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on living conditions.

The access road which serves the shops on [site address] is lined with marked parking bays on one side. The parking bays extend across the width of the appeal site, in front of the roller shutter door which serves the tyre fitting workshop. A raised kerb with metal railings separates the access road and the multi-lane carriageway opposite the row of shops. Owing to the extent of street furniture in the vicinity, it is likely that any pedestrians accessing the shopping parade from the east would need to walk past the tyre fitting shop.

Given that the tyre fitting workshop does not have any dedicated parking bays in front of the unit, vehicles need to reverse out of the unit to exit the site. The walls of the tyre fitting workshop limit the visibility of approaching vehicles and pedestrians. The presence of parked vehicles in the parking bays also decreases the visibility of approaching vehicles. Vehicles reversing out of the unit would do so into the path of oncoming traffic, disrupting traffic flow on this busy road and increasing the likelihood of a collision. Such a manoeuvre would involve crossing the pavement which could also endanger pedestrians.

Whist the appellant only anticipates 2 or 3 tyre repairs per day, there is nothing before me to suggest that this would remain the case in the future, given the anticipated time of each tyre repair and the proposed operating hours of the business. As such, the number of vehicle movements associated with the appeal site could increase, increasing the risk to road users.

I acknowledge that the appellant uses a banksman to manage vehicle movements. However, I am not convinced that this could be adequately controlled through a planning condition, or that it would be capable of being enforced.

The internal maintenance bays are of limited depth. While this would be sufficient for smaller vehicles requiring tyre repairs, any longer or larger vehicles would overhang the footpath. As a result, pedestrians would be required to walk in the road to avoid the overhanging vehicle, harming pedestrian safety. Given that there are no dropped kerbs along the pavement of the shopping area, this would be particularly harmful to those with limited mobility, rendering the shopping area inaccessible.

The marked parking bays outside of the unit, if occupied, would restrict access to the workshop. The use of temporary rubber ramps at the site restricts the use of the parking bays by those who wish to use the local shops. Similarly, a dropped kerb in this location would reduce the availability of parking. However, the net reduction in parking spaces would be limited compared to the number of spaces along the row of shops. In addition, customers are likely to either park in the bays inside the unit, or in the customer parking area to the rear. To my mind, customers of the tyre fitting workshop are likely to use the other shops during their visit to the area. Accordingly, the appeal site does not harmfully impact the availability of parking. In this regard, it would not impact the vitality of the shopping area.

While the development would not harm parking availability, it would be harmful to highway safety. Therefore, it would be contrary to [name] 1 (i), SDP 11 (i) and (ii), REI 6 and TI 2 of the Local Plan, and Policy CS 13 (4) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015). Collectively, they seek to promote safe and accessible streets and quality spaces.

The development would also be contrary to paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework which seek to ensure that development is safe and provides suitable access for all users and does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Given my conclusions above, the proposal would comply with the Southampton City Council Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2011), which aims to avoid problems that inadequate parking for vehicles can cause.

The development provides jobs and essential services to locals. The business has also made use of a building that was previously vacant. I also understand that the site has been improved as a result of its current use. That being said, these benefits do not outweigh the harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, or the harm to highway safety that I have identified above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is dismissed.