Appeal 6003670

The appeal is dismissed.

The Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition 2021-2040 (the Local Plan) was adopted on 18 December 2025 following the refusal of the planning application. This now forms part of the statutory development plan and replaces policies of the Pendle Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2011-2030) and the saved policies from the Replacement Pendle Local Plan (2001-2016), and I have therefore had due regard to this in my decision. The Council has confirmed which policies are the most relevant to the decision and both parties have had the opportunity to make representations on these policies.

The parties have confirmed that the Council based its decision on the drawing number 22053 - 02 – [name], a discrepancy exists between the elevation drawings and the corresponding floor plans in respect of the ground floor windows. I have enough detail before me to form the basis of my overall planning assessment, but had I been allowing the appeal, I would have pursued this matter further.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, in particular relation to parking and servicing.

The appeal property occupies a corner position on [address] and [address], adjacent to a signal‐controlled 4‐way junction and a cycle lane on [address]. Double yellow lines surround the junction, restricting parking in the immediate vicinity. These restrictions continue for a considerable distance along [address] in both directions, with some stretches of single yellow lines further from the junction with lesser restrictions. As a result, parking opportunities close to the appeal property are extremely limited. Some side streets off [address] provide unrestricted on‐street parking, but demand for residential parking is likely to be high due to the surrounding rows of terraced housing. Any spare capacity is therefore likely to be limited, particularly during evenings and weekends. The appeal property is also slightly detached from Nelson town centre and its public car parks, the nearest being on [address], approximately a 6‐minute walk.

The proposed development would alter the nature of the site’s lawful use from a private members’ club to a restaurant. Under the previous use, customers would generally have been limited to members and their guests, which would naturally restrict the number of people visiting on a regular basis. In contrast, a restaurant would be open to the general public, significantly increasing the potential customer base and likely resulting in a higher and more frequent turnover of visitors. This change in use, and the associated likely increase in customer numbers, would also be expected to lead to a material increase in deliveries and potentially other servicing requirements. The lawful use of the site could not change without the benefit of planning permission, so could only be used as a member’s club which is a sui generis use.

A function room formed part of the member’s club, allowing events to take place, that could include a large number of people, subject to the capacity of the building, and the appellant has stated that [name] are able to host 15 events per year. The current proposal does not seek to limit the number of events that could occur in the function room over the course of a year, meaning the frequency of events could be substantially higher than under the previous use.

The Local Highway Authority (LHA) did not object to the proposal but raised concerns relating to parking, deliveries and servicing. It recommended several conditions to address some of these matters, including a requirement for details of nearby public car parks to be promoted in all publicity and social media for the lifetime of the development. Whilst such information may assist some customers, it would be difficult to enforce and impossible to ensure that customers would view or follow the advice. It would therefore fail the condition tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The LHA’s comments also raised concerns that delivery vehicles parked on [address] would obstruct the cycle lane and potentially the free flow of traffic, and vehicles parked on [address] may obstruct the controlled pedestrian crossing. The appellant has suggested that a condition could be imposed limiting the delivery hours to outside peak hours. There is likely to be a material increase in deliveries in respect of the restaurant and potentially the function room, [address] is heavily trafficked and there are a number of road hazards that drivers are faced with close to the appeal site, including the signalised junction, pedestrianised crossing and the cycle lane. As a consequence, I am not satisfied that limiting deliveries in this way would resolve the highway safety concerns. A condition requiring a construction plan would not mitigate any highway impact from the development once the uses were operational.

A bus service passes the site and could be used by some customers, but it is unlikely to be a practical option for those attending evening functions. Although parking restrictions should prevent vehicles from stopping immediately adjacent to the property, the lack of suitable alternatives, particularly for deliveries, drop‐offs and pick‐ups, including taxis, means that the development is likely to result in a level of on street parking or waiting on the adjacent roads close to the site. This could be prolonged where vehicles wait to collect customers or unload goods. Such activity would introduce additional hazards in an already constrained location which would be detrimental to the safety of highway users, including cyclists and pedestrians.

In the past 5 years, 6 recorded collisions have occurred at the signalised junction at [address] and [address]. Although [address] when temporary traffic lights were in operation, and there is no evidence that these resulted from parking close to the junction, the recorded collisions demonstrate the sensitivity of this location. Introducing further hazards associated with increased stopping, waiting and servicing activity would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would fail to provide safe and suitable access for all users. The proposal would therefore conflict with paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Framework.

I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on highway safety, in particular relation to parking and servicing. It therefore conflicts with policies SP13 and DM37 of the Local Plan, which seek to ensure that development proposals do not result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety, including as a result of on-street parking.

The appeal site is located within the Whitefield Conservation Area (the CA), which includes the St. Marys Conservation Area. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The significance of the CA is derived from, amongst other matters, its development around the textile industry, consistent terraces of stone housing and the grid pattern layout.

Situated at the end of a terrace of stone dwellings fronting [address], the appeal property is a prominent corner building with attractive architectural detailing which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. Following the submission of amended plans, as part of the planning application, limited changes are proposed to the external appearance of the building and bringing the building back into use would also provide some improvements to its appearance. As such, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved. I note that the Council has raised no objections in this regard.

The proposed development would bring a building back into use that has been vacant for a number of years and would therefore provide improvements to its appearance and prevent further deterioration, which would provide some limited benefits to the character and appearance of the CA. I give these benefits moderate weight. The Framework sets out that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and there will be economic benefits through the creation of a new business and associated new jobs. There would also be some economic benefits associated with the dwelling during conversion works, and occupants would potentially support local businesses. This contribution would be small due to the modest scale of the housing element of the development, and I therefore attribute it limited weight.

The addition of the new flat, located within a town close to services, would contribute to meeting local housing needs and support the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. Following the adoption of the Local Plan, both parties agree that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. I afford limited weight to the creation of a new dwelling as it will only make a small contribution to housing supply.

My attention has been drawn to the substantial weight that the Framework attaches to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements. However, for the reasons stated above, the appeal would not safeguard the environment, as set out in paragraph 124 of the Framework, in respect of highway matters. As such, the site would not be suitable in the context of this description and would not be an effective use of land in this regard.

The location of the site does offer some alternatives to private cars for people accessing the proposed uses. However, this would not mitigate the identified harmful effect on highway safety, in particular relation to parking and servicing. I afford this harm significant weight and, when balancing this against the benefits of the proposal, it would not be outweighed.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan 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, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.