Appeal 6002177

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of ground floor to form a two-bedroom flat (C3) incorporating a single storey rear extension and revised fenestration at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref BH2025/01909, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 0219/PP/010 and 0219/PP/110.

Within three months of the date of this permission, the secure covered cycle parking facilities indicated on the approved plans shall be installed and made available for use. The cycle parking facilities shall thereafter be retained for use by the occupants of, and visitors to, the development at all times.

Within three months of the date of this permission, the refuse and recycling storage facilities indicated on the approved plans shall be fully implemented and made available for use. These facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

The application form confirms that the development has started, as described by third parties. My assessment of the proposal is based on its merits.

The appeal site is a two-storey building on a residential street. The first floor has long been a self-contained flat. The ground floor previously included a garage. There is a forecourt to the front of the site, accessed by a crossover.

Permission was granted in 2022 for the conversion of the ground floor to a two-bed flat including excavation and alterations1 (the first scheme). This development was not commenced. 1 Application Ref.BH2022/02158.

Permission was granted in 2023 for the extension, alteration, and conversion of the ground floor to a two-bed flat2 (the second scheme). In 2025 an application to vary the approved plans from the second scheme was approved3 (the third scheme).

Conditions 7 and 8 of the second scheme require that the forecourt not be used as a parking area, and that the ground floor flat not be occupied until the crossover is removed and the pavement reinstated. Both conditions, imposed in the interests of highway safety, were carried over to the third scheme. The appeal scheme is for much the same development as in the third scheme, except that it includes the use of the forecourt for parking.

Given the above, the main issue is the effect of the appeal scheme on highway safety.

The forecourt is some 2.9m deep and 5.6m wide once proposed cycle and refuse storage facilities are taken into account. Given these dimensions, only one typical motor vehicle could be parked wholly within the site, all but parallel to the pavement.

The Council’s guidance on driveways is that they should be at least 4.5m deep, allowing parking at a right angle to the road. The Manual for Streets states that for parallel parking each vehicle will typically need an area of about 2m by 6m. The appellant does not dispute that the appeal scheme falls short of current design standards, or that it likely requires vehicular manoeuvring over the crossover. The dispute is whether the appeal scheme arrangement is acceptable, nonetheless. I have been reminded of the advice in the Manual for Streets 2 that guidance cannot be expected to cover the precise conditions and circumstances of each site.

I have not been provided with a swept path diagram to clarify the extent and nature of the manoeuvres necessary to drive to and from the forecourt. Photographs provided to demonstrate driver visibility levels, however, give me some indication of what may be involved, and I am told the appellant completes entrance and exit manoeuvres in less than 30 seconds.

The above appears predicated on a smaller than average car as shown in the photographs, and it may be that an average size vehicle would require more manoeuvring and time. Even so, the Council does not dispute or give me reason to doubt the appellant’s claim that they currently come and go quickly, or to suspect that an unusual level of skill, or particularly complex manoeuvres, are required. Given all of this, I have little reason to think it would take a particularly long time to enter or leave the site in an average vehicle.

I recognise that the Manual for Streets places pedestrians at the head of a user hierarchy, and that their having to wait for vehicle manoeuvres to be completed is inconsistent with it. However, the site has long had an access that required passing pedestrians to wait for vehicular movements to conclude. I have little before me to suggest that the appeal scheme would lead to longer waiting times, particularly given the time likely required for the garage door or shutters to be opened and closed. 2 Application Ref BH2023/01355. 3 Application Ref BH2024/02673.

The reason for refusal indicates that the position of the forecourt parallel to the pavement results in unsatisfactory visibility of the pavement for drivers. I have, however, been provided with nothing to demonstrate that restricted visibility is inherent to parallel parking spaces.

The site circumstances do not suggest a lack of visibility; The forecourt is open alongside the pavement and enclosed at either end by a combination of simple doorsteps and low, open rails. Double yellow lines prohibit parking on one side of the crossover and opposite it. The appellant’s photographs, described above, have been placed before the Council to illustrate the extent of visibility, but resulted in very little direct riposte. Given all of this, I see little reason to feel that intervisibility between the forecourt and the pavement would be inadequate in either direction.

My attention has been drawn to instances of appeal site vehicles overhanging the pavement. That is a matter for parking enforcement. Given my findings above, I do not accept that the appeal scheme creates an inherent risk of unlawful parking.

As my findings are directly influenced by the specific site circumstances described above, including the presence of the existing access, I do not consider the appeal scheme to set a precedent for parking arrangements elsewhere.

The appeal scheme would not have a negative effect on highway safety and does not conflict in that respect with Policies DM33 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 2 or CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans for certainty. The Council has suggested two other conditions, requiring the secure covered cycle parking and recycling facilities indicated on the approved plans be installed and made available for use within three months. These are reasonable and necessary to ensure the provision of those facilities in good time.

I take the Council’s position to be that the other conditions attached to the second scheme permission have now fallen away given the retrospective nature of the appeal scheme, and see no reason to disagree.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.