Appeal 6003212

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address within the submitted planning application form does not include a postcode. The postcode in the above banner heading is therefore taken from the appeal form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with particular regard to car parking, the free flow of traffic and traffic movements.

The appeal relates to a section of land between [site address] and the [name]. The evidence before me explains how [site address] is narrow in width, is closed to through traffic, except for access, and is well-frequented by pedestrians and cyclists. It also details that the appeal site is currently a well-used, unrestricted, informal car parking area, with interested parties stating that it is used by local residents and businesses, including the nearby pub.

Neither party has provided any substantive evidence to demonstrate how many vehicles can currently fit on the appeal site. However, at the time of my site visit, late morning on a weekday, I observed 7no. vehicles parked within the appeal site. Furthermore, 3no. vehicles were parked on the highway of [site address] , directly opposite the appeal site, and 4no. cars were also parked further along [site address] , in an area of land that is signposted as a “[name]”.

Based on interested parties comments, as well as the parking restrictions I observed during my visit, I find there is already pressure on the existing parking provision in this area, and this would only be heightened in the summer months given Knaresborough’s attraction as a tourist destination.

The submissions detail how the proposal seeks to provide 2no. rapid electric vehicle charging (EVC) spaces and 5no. pay and display parking bays, with associated equipment, on the appeal site. The evidence therefore tells me that the existing character of the appeal site as an informal car parking area would change to a formal parking area, with the car parking spaces marked out.

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that a total number of 7no. spaces would be retained and that 5no. spaces would not be restricted for use by electric vehicles only. However, based on the submissions and representations before me, it is my opinion that the provision of bays for 2no. EVC spaces, as well as 5no. pay and display spaces, would displace at least some of the vehicles that currently utilise this well-used, and unrestricted, car parking area and these displaced vehicles would need to park elsewhere.

There is however very limited information before me as to where these displaced vehicles would be able to park in the vicinity, other than directly within the highway of [site address] , or within other passing points. This would result in the further narrowing of sections of this highway. To that end, my site visit confirmed that this section of [site address] was well used by pedestrians and cyclists and due to a lack of designated footways these groups of pedestrians were having to walk within the highway used by vehicles.

Therefore, any increase in parking within the highway of [site address] , as a result of the displacement caused by the appeal proposal, would inhibit the free flow of traffic and create conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. I therefore find the proposed change in character, from an informal parking area to a more formal parking area, and the resultant displacement of parked vehicles onto [site address] , would cause unnacceptable harm to highway safety in this area.

The Council have also raised concerns that the provision of EVC and pay and display spaces would increase vehicle movements along this highway as there would be a higher turnover of vehicles. There is however limited evidence to demonstrate how long vehicles currently spend parked at the appeal site, or how many vehicles currently access [site address] , to substantiate this claim. As such, and based on the evidence before me, I do not therefore find that the proposal would result in an unsuitable increase in vehicle movements in this location.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the change in character of this well-used, unrestricted and informal parking area, and the resultant displacement of parked vehicles onto the highway, would have a harmful impact upon car parking; would affect the free flow of traffic; and create conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. The appeal proposal would therefore be to the detriment of highway safety in this area and be contrary to Policy TI3 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2025 (2020), where it seeks, amongst other things, to ensure proposals provide safe and convenient parking at appropriate levels. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraphs 116 and 117 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), where they state that development should be refused if there would be an unnacceptable harm on highway safety and that development should create safe places which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

The appeal site is located within the Knaresborough Conservation Area (KCA) and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the KCA.

The KCA covers a large part of the historic centre of Knaresborough and the Knaresborough Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2008) identifies that it is the landscape rather than buildings which principally accounts for the inclusion of the [site address] area in the KCA.

I found that the appeal site, given its present use as a well-used car parking area, currently makes a limited contribution to the significance of the KCA as a whole and its proposed use as a formal car parking area, with the addition of some modestly sized equipment, would not result in any harm to the CA. Consequently, I find that the appeal proposal would not have a harmful effect upon the significance of the KCA as a whole and would therefore preserve the character and appearance of this designated heritage asset.

I have had regard to the previously dismissed appeal1 for the siting of 3no. rapid electric vehicle chargers to serve 6no. EVC bays. However, the appeal scheme before me is for a different proposal and I have therefore determined this appeal on its own planning merits.

I acknowledge the environmental benefits associated with the promotion and use of rapid charging points for electric vehicles; the growing demand for electric vehicle charging points; the support within the Framework for the provision of spaces to enable the charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and that the planning system should support the transition to net zero by 2050.

However, I find these benefits do not outweigh the harm I have identified to highway safety that would arise from the proposed changes to this car parking area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.