Appeal 6002874

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner above I have taken the description of development as described on the Council’s decision notice. This is because it describes the development more accurately than that detailed on the application form.

There is a discrepancy between the red edge shown on the location plan and that which is shown on the proposed site plan1. The latter includes land adjacent to No.[address] (No.40) while the former excludes it.

The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 20152 confirms that an application must be accompanied by a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates. Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) clarifies that “as a minimum, applicants will need to submit a ‘location plan’ that shows the application site in relation to the surrounding area”3. The PPG goes on to state that the site “should be edged clearly with a red line on the location plan. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development (eg land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings)”4. The PPG confirms that a blue edge should be drawn around any other land in the ownership of the applicant.

The red edge on the location plan establishes the land to which the appeal relates, and therefore the extent to which any proposed material change of use would occur. The land to the rear of No.40 is not included on the location plan. It is also noted that the area is not identified as blue edged land. The proposed change of [site address] Ref: 2025-CS-06 2 Article 7( [site address] )(c)(i) 3 Paragraph: 023 [name]: 14-023-20140306 4 Paragraph: 024 [name]: 14-[phone] use therefore cannot lawfully relate to that additional piece of land and, in the event that the proposals were acceptable, no conditions that may be required could be imposed on that land. Therefore, I cannot have regard to any land which lies outside of the red edge as detailed on the location plan. I return to this point when considering the third main issue.

The material change of use to which this appeal relates has occurred. Permission is therefore sought retrospectively in this regard. In terms of operational development, the building has been extended without the benefit of planning permission. That extension is complete. However, the appeal proposes an alternative scheme to that which has been constructed. I have therefore considered the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: a) the character and appearance of the area; b) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and disturbance, overbearing, light and outlook; and, c) highway safety, with particular regard to parking.

The appeal site includes a part two-storey, part single-storey building. The two-storey element has a shallow pitched roof. Prior to being extended I understand that the previous single storey element included a shallow lean-to roof also5. The single storey element was set back from [site address] by some distance behind a courtyard.

The site is located adjacent to a group of terraced streets. The properties on the terraced streets are generally two-storey, some properties have box dormers within the roof. These dormers add additional vertical emphasis to those dwellings. No.40 is a two-storey terraced dwelling which immediately adjoins the site. On the opposite side of [site address] is the two-storey element of a church building. Buildings which are two-storey in scale are dominant in the visual context of the appeal site.

As currently extended, the unauthorised extension has a roof height which is similar to the sill level of first floor windows within the host building and those within No.40. The building is set below the two-storey eaves of the adjoining buildings by some distance. Therefore, the scale of the development remains subservient to the more prominent two-storey development immediately surrounding the site.

To the front and side of the building are areas of hardstanding which visually separate the development from both [site address] and [address]. This set back from the public highway, along with its subservient height, ensures that the development is not a domineering presence within the public realm. In views along 5 As indicated in the [name] image ([name]) [address] and [address], the extension is seen against the more significant scale of two-storey development on all sides. Therefore, the scale of the extended building is not so significant in design terms that it results in a dominant presence as constructed.

The roof design of the extension is similar to that of the existing two-storey building. This consistency in form means that there is visual harmony with the host building. There is also a notable variety in form of buildings within the immediate visual context of the site. As such, the design of the extension does not appear visually incongruous.

The proposed partial step back would reduce the footprint of the building and a reduction in overall mass of the extension. I have concluded that the extension as constructed is not harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, I consider that the proposed reduction in scale would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area either.

For the above reasons, the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore complies with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Local Plan for [name] 2017 (the CS). Together, these seek to deliver good quality design which is appropriate to their context in terms of layout, scale, details and materials.

The Council’s reason for refusal for this main issue cites the Householder Supplementary Planning Document. This document relates to householder development and, therefore, its content does not appear to be of relevance to this

Within the rear elevation of No.40 is a window at ground floor level. The external space to the front of this elevation is limited and comprises a small yard. The development is constructed on the boundary and sits immediately adjacent to the small yard. The original development on the boundary was of much lesser scale in terms of height and projection.

The existing degree of projection along with an increase in height results in a dominant presence of built form positioned on the boundary. Due to its height and significant depth, it is likely that the building would be clearly visible from the ground floor room. This would result in significant enclosure to the internal space served by that opening, leading to an erosion of light while diminishing the outlook.

From the external yard the proximity, height and projection of the extension results in a domineering presence. This results in a significant degree of overbearing impact to this external space.

The appeal proposal would result in a slight reduction in the overall length of development adjacent to No.40, reducing the extent of built form to some degree. However, the proposal would result in a development which still extends some way beyond the rear boundary of the yard, while the height and overall mass of development on the boundary would remain significant. The reduced scheme would remain a dominant mass along the boundary. This would result in an overbearing development which reduces outlook and light. Therefore, the reduction in the depth of the development as proposed would not address the issues arising.

The close proximity of the site to residential properties means that there are noise sensitive receptors which could be affected by activities arising from the use. The nature of the use means that activities are likely to generate a high level of noise. This could be from the use of tools and machinery, the revving or idling of engines and general movements at the site, for example. It is suggested that the site would not use compressors or include spray painting. However, these are not the only noise generating activities associated with a car repair garage.

The submission has not been supported by any form of Noise Assessment to demonstrate that the effect on noise sensitive receptors would be acceptable. Given the close relationship with residential properties, I would expect a proposal for the use proposed to be accompanied by such information. This would establish the likely noise effects from the use and detail any attenuation which may be required. In the absence of this information I cannot be satisfied that the use does not give rise to noise and disturbance issues.

It is suggested that works to vehicles are carried out with the roller shutter door closed. While this may reduce the transmission of noise, there remains no information to demonstrate this would reduce the noise generated to an acceptable level. I did not observe any means of ventilation on my site visit. Given that employees would be working in an enclosed environment they may be exposed to dangerous fumes. I am unclear whether this would comply with any health and safety legislation. Therefore, there may be a requirement for mechanical ventilation to be installed. This would add further concern in regard to noise generated from the site.

Due to the nature of the use and its close proximity to residential properties, there is a clear potential for noise disturbance and the control of operating hours would not address this concern. I note that there has been no objection raised from the current occupiers of No.[address] and No.40. However, I am required to ensure that development results in a good standard of amenity for future occupiers not just the present occupants. Therefore, the lack of objection from these properties does not alter my conclusions in any way.

For the above reasons, the development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and disturbance, overbearing, light and outlook. The development therefore conflicts with Policy DS5 of the CS which requires that development does not harm the amenity of existing users and residents.

Within the adjacent terraced streets on-street parking is restricted for resident permit holders only. There is unrestricted on-street parking on [site address] to the front of the appeal site. The width of [site address] means that parking can only be provided to one side. [address] is suitable for vehicular movements although it is not of sufficient width to accommodate any on-street parking. Therefore, the availability of on-street parking spaces within the area is limited.

At the time of my site visit there was some capacity for on-street parking on [site address] . However, this observation is just a small snapshot and may not be wholly representative of the general availability of on-street parking in this location.

I have not been presented with any parking surveys to demonstrate availability of on-street parking along [site address] to understand its general capacity and its ability to absorb further on-street parking. In the absence of such information to demonstrate to the contrary, an increase in on-street parking may lead to vehicles parking in an ad hoc manner which obstructs the highway or pavements. This would result in pedestrian and highway safety concerns.

I understand that the proposed use would require 3 parking spaces per repair bay and [site address] space per two employees. As originally submitted the appeal scheme proposed three bays (referred to as ramps by the appellant) and two employees. During the course of the application this was subsequently amended, through submissions and an amended site plan, to one bay with a reduction to one employee working at the site.

The Highway Authority in their consultation response suggest that 4 off-street spaces would be required if one bay was proposed. During my site visit there was one service bay within the garage. Based on this information, I consider that four off-street parking spaces is the likely parking demand for the proposed use.

I am satisfied that two vehicles could be parked within the building at any one time, one at the service bay and one in the space behind the roller shutters. However, the external forecourt is limited in space. Furthermore, the sloping forecourt, stone boundary walls, and the position of doors and steps all provide further constraints to the area. During my site visit a car was parked to the side of the office door. This was a small vehicle and projected slightly in front of the roller shutter door. A larger vehicle would encroach further in front of the roller shutter door. This may further impede access into the garage, making that space impactable. Given that I cannot consider land which lies outside of the red edge of the location plan, I am not persuaded that four off-street parking spaces could be provided within the appeal site.

The development is likely to result in a requirement for vehicles to be parked within the public highway. Furthermore, it is also likely that multiple vehicular manoeuvres would be required to get vehicles to/from the service bay. Given the limited off-street space available, the switching round of vehicles may result in them being brought onto the highway. The length of time for these manoeuvres and vehicles being brought onto the highway would be exacerbated if there was only one employee on site.

Even if I were able to accept the inclusion of the land to the rear of No.40, I am not persuaded that this space could accommodate parking for 3 vehicles. The plan does not adequately detail the width of the stone boundary wall or detail the position of the access from [site address] . Therefore, I am not convinced that these spaces would not impede access into the site or access into the garage. Furthermore, there is no swept path detail to show that these spaces could be manoeuvred into/from. The site constraints means that such information would be necessary to demonstrate that the parking strategy is workable.

I acknowledge the detail contained within the Car Activity Plan and note that this was conducted over a two-week period6. This indicates a daily average of three vehicles were worked on. However, given the concerns that I have identified above, this information does little to alter my conclusions with regard to parking provision.

Therefore, on this main issue, I have insufficient information to determine that the development does not have a harmful effect on highway safety, due to inadequate parking arrangements. The development therefore conflicts with Policies DS5 and TR2 of the CS. Together, amongst other things, these seek to deliver appropriate servicing arrangements, taking a design led approach to parking which create a safe environment.

I have had regard to the representation made by third parties, including letters of support. I acknowledge that the use generates employment and that the use provides a service for local residents and businesses. These are clear social and economic benefits of the development. However, in this context, the modest scale of the scheme would not attract such significant benefits as to outweigh the permanent harm to living conditions, and potential harm to highway safety that I have identified. Furthermore, there is little evidence before me to qualify that there is an overarching need for the use.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.