Appeal 6002801

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Birmingham City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The description of development set out above is taken from the application form. However, the description on the Council’s decision notice, and the appellant’s appeal statement does not include reference to community facilities. The Council’s committee report confirms that no separate community use is proposed and therefore I have determined the appeal on the same basis as the Council considered the application.

The appellant has questioned whether the proposed development requires planning permission on the basis it would not amount to development. However, this is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”). It is open to the appellant to apply to have the matter determined under sections 191 or 192 of the 1990 Act. Such an application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal, and I have proceeded to deal with the case before me on its planning merits.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety having particular regard to vehicle movements and the provision of parking.

The host building is a large commercial building, now disused, that was formerly operated as a private members’ club. Vehicular access is taken from [address], leading to a gated parking area located behind the building. Beyond this lies the access to a scout hut, and a narrow single‐track driveway continues on to the [name] grammar school. The access road is bordered by the rear gardens of properties on [address], some of which have garages or direct accesses onto it. The host building itself is set back from the [address] footway by an area of hardstanding.

Five daily prayer periods would take place with times varying between summer and winter. The main prayers and consequent peak use would occur on Fridays at 1pm in winter and 1.45pm in summer.

The on-site parking is behind the building and not visible from the road frontage. Therefore, once the car park is full, this would not be readily apparent to subsequent arrivals. The access road is narrow and whilst it is possible for two vehicles to pass, there are pinch points where vehicles would need to wait to allow others to pass. Vehicles that could not be accommodated within the car park would have to return to [address] to find on-street parking. As a result, the limited space to manoeuvre and turn would be further constrained by vehicles arriving and waiting to pass. Therefore, some vehicles would need to reverse back onto [address].

The appeal proposal’s peak activity would not coincide with school or scout hut peaks. However, cumulative trips from the scout hut, school, and nearby homes would intensify use of the [address] access, and increase the risk of conflict between vehicles, queues, and reversing manoeuvres at the access. A new two‐way access to the school via 23–[address] has planning permission and works have started, but its opening date is unknown. Therefore, while these works may improve the school access, they would not resolve the key access and parking issues in respect of the proposal, as the respective peak trip periods would not overlap.

The site lies within a busy urban area. Nearby premises on [address] include independent retail units, an existing place of worship and a supermarket with a direct entrance onto the footway. In addition, [address] railway station is approximately eighty metres away and has no dedicated parking. The street is a bus route and has recently accommodated new residential development. In this context, baseline pedestrian and traffic activity is high, and additional car‐based trips associated with the proposal would increase the potential for access conflicts, queuing, manoeuvring, and parking pressure in the vicinity of the site.

A short distance from the site, [address] meets [address]/[address] opposite the B4514 dual carriageway, which connects to the A4090 dual carriageway. The junction is offset, and unsignalised, and pedestrian crossings on [address], [address], and both B4514 directions, together with extensive nearby commercial uses, including a supermarket and car park result in a complex and busy junction. As a result, traffic waiting to turn queues towards the site. When this occurs, it would result in conflict with vehicles seeking to enter and exit the appeal site’s parking area.

Interested parties describe the junction between [address]/ [address] and the B4514 as dangerous. During my Friday site visit between midday and 2.00pm, traffic was heavy, and I observed frequent turns to/from [address], [address], and the B4514. Pedestrian crossing use and oncoming flows caused queuing in several directions, while parking on footways, corners, and near crossings impeded visibility. As such, the existing highway safety concerns identified in the area would be exacerbated by drivers seeking alternative parking if unable park at the appeal site.

Parking is prohibited at all times near the junction and opposite the site, and during Monday to Friday 7.30am to 9.30am and 4.00pm to 6.00pm on the same side as the site. However, I observed parking on double yellow lines and on pavements, restricting visibility and narrowing footways. The ward councillor’s comments and numerous representations, including dated photographs show pavement and double yellow line parking near and opposite the site. Furthermore, the appellant’s [name] (TTN) also records inappropriate parking, including within bus stops and along footways. As a result, existing restrictions are not preventing inappropriate and dangerous parking and the appeal proposal’s limited on-site parking provision would exacerbate this further.

Vehicle trip generation would be concentrated around prayer start and finish times, resulting in increased parking demand focused close to the site during these periods. Enforcement against pavement and double yellow line parking cannot be relied upon; such behaviour is already prevalent and could increase, reducing visibility on [address] and towards its junction with [address]. [name] prayers in particular, overspill and turning movements near this busy, complex junction would impede traffic flow and heighten conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. This would materially exacerbate existing access, safety, and parking problems.

The Birmingham Parking Supplementary Planning Document ([name]) advises that places of worship can generate high levels of short-term parking demand and that parking demand varies between different places of worship. The SPD requires evidence to be provided that adequate parking capacity is available at typical times of worship within an 800-metre walking distance. The SPD also indicates that based on the zone the site is located in, one parking space per 15m2 of gross internal floor area should be provided. As such the maximum number would be approximately forty spaces. Allowing four spaces for staff the appeal proposal would only provide twenty-two spaces for worshippers. Whilst there is no evidence before me how the on-site car park could be arranged to provide a small number of extra spaces, even if it could be achieved, a significant number of parking spaces would still need to be accommodated off the site.

The site is located in an area where future users would have access to a range of public transport options. The appellant’s TTN indicates approximately half of worshippers would arrive on foot or by other sustainable modes, reflecting the stated expectation that most users would live or work locally. However, the [name] indicates that places of worship vary with regard to how far worshippers travel to attend. The appellant’s TTN indicates that on‐site parking provision could accommodate anticipated attendance at the five daily prayer sessions. However, it recognises that this provision would not meet demand for the main Friday prayers. No clear evidence has been provided of the catchment area for attendees or modes of transport they would be likely to use.

The building on site appears large enough to accommodate a significant number of worshippers which would result in a consequent increase in the number of vehicle movements to the site and the resultant pressure on car parking. No clear evidence is before me to indicate how the appellant has derived their attendance figure of one hundred worshippers. Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate how significant occasions and festivals would impact attendance and what effect this would have on travel and parking.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a scheme elsewhere in the city for a prayer facility1 which relied on a survey of users of an existing facility indicating that 85.2% of attendees walked to prayers. However, that evidence concerns a different facility, location, and catchment, from a different time. There is no clear evidence before me to demonstrate that the capacity of the facility, characteristics of its user base and transport context are comparable to the appeal proposal. Therefore, I attach little weight to it in my assessment.

I have considered whether a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a parking management strategy could address the peak levels of parking such as Friday prayers. However, I have not been provided with clear evidence that such a strategy would operate effectively given the location of the rear parking area, the constrained access drive, and the likelihood that vehicles may need to be redirected away from the rear parking area during peak periods. Therefore, I do not consider that a condition of this nature would be capable of satisfactorily overcoming the highway safety concerns.

The appellant has suggested that the appeal proposal’s likely activity would not be materially different from the site’s previous use as a private members club. However, the evidence before me indicates that the former use would have tended to operate mainly during the evening period, when overall traffic volumes would be lower. As such, the traffic patterns associated with the use as a private members club are not directly comparable to those anticipated under the appeal proposal. Accordingly, they do not alter my conclusions on the highway safety impacts of the proposal.

Overall, I find that the traffic generated by the proposal together with the intensification of vehicle movements along the narrow access drive and within the rear parking area would result in unacceptable highway safety impacts including the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians using the restricted access route, the close proximity of the site entrance to pedestrian and cycle movements on [address], traffic queuing at the junction with [address] and the likelihood that visibility for drivers exiting the site would be compromised by inconsiderate or uncontrolled on‐street parking, including but not limited to attendees at the proposed prayer facility

Accordingly, I conclude that that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety having particular regard to vehicle movements and the provision of parking. As such it conflicts with policies PG3 and TP44 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 which require new development to encourage people to move around by cycling and walking and promote the safe use of the existing transport network. I also find conflict with policies DM14 and DM15 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 which seek to ensure the safety of highway users is properly taken into consideration, development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety, and parking proposals avoid highway safety problems. 1 Council reference 2018/05893/PA

Policy DM8 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document supports places of worship in local centres as the preferred location, subject to compliance with the policy’s criteria. The appeal site sits at the edge of the [address] Local Centre and would replace one town‐centre use with another. However, for the reasons set out above regarding highway safety, the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the relevant criteria. Consequently, it does not attract support from Policy DM8 and that policy does not weigh in its favour.

Interested parties have highlighted that the proposed prayer facility would reduce the need for attendees to travel elsewhere, which would reduce reliance on private vehicles, promote sustainable modes of travel, and alleviate pressure on the wider highway network. This weighs in favour of the proposal but there is no specific evidence before me to assess the relative benefits of this factor against the concerns I have identified above. Accordingly, I give this limited weight in my consideration.

Interested parties refer to the potential benefits of opportunities for wider community uses, such as a food bank, an education hub, and after‐school religious activities. However, the proposal before me is for a prayer facility only. The Council has suggested, and the appellant has agreed, that, were planning permission to be granted, a condition would restrict the use to a prayer facility and exclude wider community uses. I have therefore assessed the appeal on that basis.

The building’s lawful use as a private members’ club could involve late‐night activity, alcohol, and music, with a greater potential for noise and disturbance than the proposed prayer facility. By contrast, the proposed use would be quieter, more predictable, and operate at set times, representing an improvement for neighbouring residents in this regard. It would also make effective use of a building which is presently unused and therefore represents an opportunity to improve the appearance of the site. I am also mindful that the Framework supports the effective use of under-utilised land and buildings. While these matters attract positive weight, they do not outweigh my concerns about highways safety and the consequent policy conflicts discussed above.

In reaching my decision, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Equality Act). Decision makers must have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

The PSED does not dictate that any particular decision must be reached but requires that the equality implications of a proposal are conscientiously considered and weighed appropriately within the overall planning balance depending on the context and potential impact of the decision.

In this case, the appeal scheme concerns a proposed place of worship, serving individuals who share the protected characteristic of religion. Granting planning permission would provide an additional opportunity for the worshipping community to practise their religion, and access facilities for prayer. While there are other places of worship within the wider area, I am mindful that places of worship associated with a single religion may nevertheless serve different denominations, traditions or forms of worship and are not necessarily interchangeable. Accordingly, I have had due regard to the possibility that additional or more suitable facilities may enable individuals to have access to a place of worship that aligns with their specific religious practice.

I acknowledge that the proposal would provide a place of worship for individuals with the protected characteristic of religion and may reduce the need to travel. It would also bring a currently redundant building back into active use. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and that the identified benefits and other material considerations do not carry sufficient weight to justify a decision other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.