Appeal 6002126

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the application form includes reference to the bar next door and lease of the appeal property. This does not relate to the act of development, so I have omitted it and determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • highway safety with particular regard to parking and servicing; • living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is part of a parade of retail and commercial units forming a local centre on the policies map and policy Dev 5 of the Warrington Local Plan 2023 (the Local Plan). The parade is set back from Green Lane by an open grassed area and a pedestrian access along the frontage. [address] a cul-de-sac vehicular access runs behind the premises and allows for servicing, access to the flats above and to adjacent houses and garages.

Neither the appeal site nor the other commercial premises on [address] benefit from dedicated vehicle or cycle parking. Perpendicular parking along the rear access where there is no pedestrian walkway reduces the available road width, limiting manoeuvring space and visibility. Parking on the surrounding streets is restricted and capacity is under pressure, as demonstrated by pavement parking on the footway opposite, noted in the Council’s evidence and observed on my site visit.

The appellant suggests that parking to the rear of the parade is unauthorised. However, as adopted highway with no parking restrictions, permission is not required. The appellant also points to existing uses (including an art gallery and keep-fit classes) which generate visitor peaks and parking demand. Those established activities form part of the baseline against which the appeal proposal must be assessed, having regard to capacity and policy, and do not, of themselves, justify a further material increase in parking or servicing demand where capacity is already constrained and policy seeks to avoid additional pressure.

The Council’s Standards for Parking in New Development (March 2015) Supplementary Planning Document ([name]) sets out the parking and cycle requirements for commercial uses. The Council’s evidence is that the proposed use would require three car parking spaces, including provision for disabled, cycle and motorcycle parking, yet the appeal proposal does not include any. While the appellant suggests staff cycles could be stored inside, no details have been provided and this would not cater for customer cycles; moreover, the suggestion that customers should be discouraged from cycling to a premises serving alcohol is not determinative, as not all patrons of a drinking establishment consume alcohol.

Although, with twenty-six covers, the proposed bar is modest in size, it would represent a more intensive use than a tattoo studio, with greater customer turnover and staff presence. Its local centre location with footways and street lighting suggests many patrons could arrive on foot and there appears to be strong local support, but there is no clear evidence of likely travel patterns, and some customers would still be likely to travel by car, particularly those with limited mobility, or in poor weather.

The Parking SPD allows for reduced parking provision in exceptional circumstances in town centres and district centres, provided that sufficient publicly available parking capacity is available, there are no existing on-street parking problems, and that further on-street parking would not give rise to problems. Considering the existing parking situation, these [name] requirements would not be met with a reduced level of parking. Even if many customers were to travel other than by private vehicle, it is still likely the demand for parking would be of a greater magnitude and duration than the former use of the appeal site and would exacerbate current parking problems to a material degree.

Waste and recycling bins for the shops and flats are currently stored on the rear highway alongside parked vehicles. A bar use would generate more waste than a tattoo studio and additional bins at the rear would further constrain already limited parking and manoeuvring. While the appellant suggests internal waste storage could be secured by condition, no practical details have been provided, and bins would still need to be presented externally for collection.

Large waste collection vehicles already have insufficient space to turn so must reverse and the appeal proposal would not change this. The appellant indicates deliveries would involve vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes, which are likely to be larger than would be used for deliveries to a tattoo studio. Additional large vehicles would increase the potential for traffic and pedestrian conflict in the area constrained by existing parking behind the appeal site.

As set out above, the parade was not designed with dedicated on-site vehicle or cycle parking, and already experiences parking pressure that could be potentially hazardous, especially at peak times and during servicing. Even though traffic is limited because the access to the rear is not a through route, with little capacity to absorb further demand, a change of use that materially increases trips or servicing would be likely to worsen obstruction and conflict, harming highway safety.

For these reasons the proposal would have an adverse effect on highways safety with particular regard to parking and servicing. As such it would conflict with policies INV1 and ENV8 of the Local Plan which amongst other things, require consideration of matters including refuse collection and storage, the effect and timing of traffic movement to, from and within the site and car parking including impacts on highway safety; and to ensure priority is given to walking, cycling and public transport as well as ensuring traffic generated does not have an adverse impact on the local community.

As discussed above, there would be an increase in waste and deliveries affecting the highway to the rear of the site, but these would be unlikely to take place at anti-social hours and would not be of a scale that would materially harm living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Occupiers of flats above a row of commercial premises can expect to notice some activity, and the Council’s environmental health consultee has confirmed that no complaints have been received about the existing wine bar. However, the proposal would introduce a further drinking establishment immediately adjacent to an existing wine bar. It is a use which is inherently likely to generate noticeable arrival and departure points, such as when staff or groups arrive and leave, as well as congregation at the frontage and activity into the later part of the day. The hours of operation could be controlled by condition, but this would not prevent adverse effects during the permitted hours. Consequently, in combination with the existing adjacent drinking premises, the appeal proposal would materially increase the frequency and intensity of comings and goings, with associated noise and disturbance likely to be experienced by the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

There is external seating in place associated with the adjacent premises, but the appeal proposal does not include space for external seating within the application site edged in red. Any activity in the green space in front of the parade would remain outside the application site and would not necessarily be associated with it, but the additional footfall and frontage activity arising from the proposed use would nonetheless increase the risk of disturbance occurring.

Drawing this together, I conclude that the proposal would be likely to result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance. In this regard it would conflict with policy ENV8 of the Local Plan in so far as it seeks to protect general levels of amenity.

It has been suggested that the submitted objection may have been motivated by issues not related to planning. This does not bear on my determination of the issues which I have assessed based on the evidence before me.

Significant numbers of interested parties have indicated support for the appeal proposal and assert it would provide a valuable local amenity, allow an existing business to thrive as well as bringing an empty unit back into use. These benefits of the appeal proposal weigh positively in its favour. Policy Dev 5 of the Local Plan directs retail, and leisure uses to locations including local centres where the development is of a scale and nature appropriate to the area, and expects them to enhance the vitality, viability and overall attractiveness of the centre. While the appeal proposal could add vitality to the centre, overall, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the appeal proposal would not be appropriate in this location. Accordingly, these benefits do not outweigh my findings in respect of the main issues in this appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material planning considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.