Appeal 6002247

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed parking provision would result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety or residential amenity.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling on [site address] , a narrow unadopted lane with an edge-of-settlement character. Adjacent to the lane outside the property is a strip of land where a small number of cars can park parallel to the carriageway, although these spaces are informal and cannot be relied upon in perpetuity by future occupiers. The opposite side of the lane is defined by a hedge, and further along is a Parish Council-owned car park for the nearby allotments. The grass verge beside the cricket pitch is lined with timber posts, preventing parking along that section of the lane.

Parking for the property is provided in two locations. There is a parking area to the side of the dwelling accommodating two vehicles in tandem and, additionally, in front of a separate garage within a small row of garages adjacent to the property. This reflects the dispersed pattern of off-street parking in this part of the village, where parking is typically contained within individual plots or in front of garages rather than on the lane itself.

The development proposed is the change of use from a single dwellinghouse to a House in [name] (HMO) comprising seven bedrooms with ensuites, including the erection of a single-storey detached outbuilding, a part single-storey rear extension and associated fenestration changes. The existing parking areas within the plot and the area in front of the separate garage would continue to serve the property. These physical works do not alter the parking arrangements and therefore do not affect the assessment of parking demand.

The proposal would provide three on-site parking spaces, although only two would be independently accessible. The Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance (2015), including the wording of Table 8, states that HMOs should provide the same number of spaces as other residential dwellings. [name], a dwelling with five or more bedrooms requires four parking spaces. The existing dwelling contains five bedrooms, and the proposal would increase this to seven bedrooms. In either case, the relevant category remains five or more bedrooms, and the correct requirement is therefore four spaces, not seven.

On that basis, the development would fall short by two independently accessible spaces. While numerically modest, the shortfall must be assessed in the context of the particular characteristics of [site address] , including its narrow width, limited passing opportunities and the absence of reliable on-street alternatives. The question is therefore whether this shortfall, though small in absolute terms, would nevertheless result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety or residential amenity.

Photographs before me show vehicles parked on [site address] at certain times. The images do not identify the vehicles involved, indicate how frequently such parking occurs or demonstrate that it is associated with the appeal property. However, they do illustrate that when vehicles are present, the lane operates at or near its functional capacity. Given the constrained nature of the lane, even a modest increase in parking demand, such as that arising from a two-space shortfall, would be likely to exacerbate these conditions.

The Parish Council-owned car park provides around 14 spaces for more than 50 allotments and is intended for allotment holders. Given its limited capacity and functional purpose, it cannot reasonably be regarded as sufficiently available to future occupiers of the appeal property.

A small number of informal parking spaces exist adjacent to the north-east corner of the cricket pitch. This land is private, and there is no evidence that future occupiers of the appeal property would have any right to use it.

A public car park lies adjacent to the former [name], around 450 metres from the appeal site. Given the distance involved, it is not within reasonable or convenient walking distance for routine use by future occupiers.

The appellant further suggests that the demographic of typical HMO occupiers would result in lower car ownership and therefore reduced parking demand. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that future occupiers of this particular property would have materially different car-ownership patterns from the wider population. Parking standards apply irrespective of occupant characteristics, and in the absence of robust site-specific evidence, this assertion does not assist in determining the likely parking demand arising from the development.

The physical constraints of [site address] , the limited on-street opportunities and the shortfall in independently accessible spaces together indicate that the development would be likely to result in overspill parking in unsuitable locations. Although the appellant has provided a parking survey, it offers only limited snapshots and does not record parking levels or conditions over a sufficiently representative period. It therefore does not alter my findings. While the numerical shortfall is small, in this particular context even limited additional parking demand would increase the potential for obstruction and conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity.

The appellant also suggests that additional parking could be created at the frontage of the appeal site. However, no plans or details have been provided to demonstrate how such parking could be formed, whether it would be safe or practical, or whether it would fall entirely within the application site. As it does not form part of the proposal before me, and there is no substantive evidence that it represents a realistic or deliverable alternative, this suggestion is not determinative in my assessment.

For the reasons given above, the shortfall in independently accessible parking spaces on site, though modest in absolute terms, would be likely to result in overspill parking in unsuitable locations, with consequent harm to highway safety and residential amenity. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies DM23, DM33 and DM35 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019), which require development to provide adequate parking, avoid transport impacts that compromise safety or accessibility and ensure that proposals respond positively to their context without giving rise to harmful effects on the functioning of the area.

For the reasons given above, 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 it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.