Appeal 6003019

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed ‘part retrospective’ from the description of development in the banner heading above because it is not relevant to the act of development.

I observed on my site visit that the hardstanding has been laid but the car parking bays were not in use. The front wall and new fencing on the northern boundary have also been constructed, but the alignment of parking bays along the frontage of the appeal site appear to differ from the proposed plans. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I have dealt with the appeal based on the proposed plans which were before the Council when the application was determined.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regards to noise and disturbance, and on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a building set in from the boundaries of its plot, arranged around a central courtyard. Existing car parking spaces are laid out on the southern side and partially to the rear of the building, sharing the rear boundary of dwellings located on [address] and [address]. The Royal Preston Hospital is close-by to the north-west and these existing car parking spaces (around 29 in total) are allocated to the NHS Trust.

Former gardens to the front and northern side of the building have been replaced with a tarmac surface and additional car parking spaces have been laid out, resulting in 65no. spaces across the site. The proposal differs from the recent appeal1 in that it does not involve a change of use of the building. Nevertheless, such a level of car parking provision would significantly increase the number of vehicle movements associated with people travelling to and from the site daily.

The appellant asserts that users of the car park are not necessarily clinical NHS staff, and that the majority work office hours (9am to 5pm). Doctors and nurses are said to park closer to, or at the hospital. However, I have very little evidence before me to support this, and on my morning site visit, I observed cars both entering and leaving the car park. This shows its use throughout the day and likely corresponds with the different shift or working patterns of NHS staff.

The increase in vehicle movements and activity would be most keenly felt by the closest dwelling on [address], which would be separated from the row of parking spaces on the western boundary by only limited landscaping. The complete vehicle loop around the site, utilising the existing second access point, means there would also be an increase in vehicular movements close to the rear of dwellings on [address] which typically have shallow gardens. The manoeuvring of vehicles, engine noise and slamming of car doors would result in an increase in noise and disturbance to these dwellings despite the pockets of landscaping. This could extend from early morning, well into the evenings and over the weekends when, notwithstanding existing car parking on the site, neighbours should reasonably expect a lower level of disturbance.

The acoustic fencing which has been constructed on the northern boundary of the appeal site would likely provide some degree of mitigation in respect of noise and disturbance to the occupiers of 171 [site address] .

Nevertheless, I conclude that the development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of other neighbouring residents, with particular regards to noise and disturbance. It would conflict with Policy AD1(a) of the Preston Local Plan 2012-25 (2015) (LP) which permits development within an existing residential area where there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity, and where it would not lead to an over-intensification of use of a site.

The Existing Site Plan and the historic imagery in the appellant’s evidence show that the front and side of the appeal site was formerly laid out with gardens, with a landscape margin along the northern boundary with the adjacent dwelling. Photographs provided by interested parties also show a hedgerow and relatively deep landscape margin along much of the wide road frontage, in keeping with the leafy, verdant character and appearance of the area.

Although there are still pockets of trees, hedges and shrubs along the southern boundary, the gardens and much of the landscaping have been replaced with a tarmac surface which appears a strident and dominant feature particularly in close-by views from [site address] . However, the proposed plans show a row of trees along the frontage of the appeal site, and the appellant has confirmed they would be prepared to plant mature species and a replacement hedgerow. 1 APP/N2345/W/25/3358387

[name] appreciate this would not fully mitigate the loss of the gardens, such appropriate planting would effectively filter views of the site and would ensure the development assimilates well with the green and leafy character of the surrounding area. The proposed landscaping would also soften the visual appearance of the acoustic fence constructed along the northern boundary. Details of landscaping could be secured by a planning condition.

I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would accord with LP Policy AD1(a) in so far as it requires development within an existing residential area to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

The development has created a ‘one way system’ for vehicles, and I note that County Highways consider the separation of the entry and exit points to be an improvement to the pre-existing arrangement, likely to minimise congestion and conflicts between incoming and outgoing vehicles. However, whilst this is a benefit of the development, it is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found to the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The appellant asserts that the former use as a religious retreat with 12 bedrooms represents a fall-back position. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that this use would be comparable to the development before me in terms of vehicular movements or activity. Accordingly, it lends little support to it.

Whilst the development does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, I have found it to cause significant harm to the living conditions of nearby residents. Consequently, it conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.