Appeal 6003898

The appeal is dismissed.

The address of the site on the application form lists the county before the town. For clarity, in the banner heading above, I have corrected this in accordance with the address of the site set out in the Council's decision notice.

The Council’s decision notice cites a single reason for refusal relating to the effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. The officer report also identified a conflict with development plan policy in respect of highway matters. However, the Council’s appeal statement suggests that the loss of the public house weighs against the proposal. As this matter was not relied upon in either the decision notice or the officer report, I have identified the main issues having regard to those documents and dealt with other matters later in my decision. I am satisfied that no party is prejudiced by this approach.

Accordingly, the main issues are: • The effect of the development on the living conditions of existing occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • The effect of the development on highways safety with particular regard to parking and servicing.

Until around February 2020 the ground floor of the appeal building (now vacant) operated as a public house known as the Greyhound. The upper floors have since been converted to three apartments, with a further eight dwellings in the former pub car park, five of which are arranged around a rear courtyard and three of which face the street on the other side of the vehicular access. The appeal site has limited external space, comprising three parking spaces, an area used for storing bins to the side and hardstanding to the rear. The dwellings to the rear are a higher level and directly face towards the appeal site, and the apartments above are accessed from a door to the side of the appeal property, so activity associated with the appeal building and external areas would be readily apparent

The appeal proposal would move from a specific public house use to a flexible permission enabling any use within the relevant classes. The appellant contends that the proposal would provide flexibility to bring the premises back into use, however, to determine the appeal I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would not be unacceptably harmed by any use that could reasonably be expected to operate from the premises. The range of activities permitted within [name] and F2 of the Use Classes Order is wide and would be likely to result in materially different patterns of occupation, including variations in customer numbers, staffing, servicing requirements, and hours of operation.

No layout or operational details have been submitted. Therefore, the location within the building of the most intensive activity, and the frequency, timing, or duration of activity across the range of potential uses are unclear. The adjacent dwellings are located in close proximity to the appeal premises, so any resultant noise and disturbance from the new use would impact on the living conditions of existing occupiers nearby. There is also no clear evidence before me regarding parking demand for customers, staff, or servicing. It is therefore plausible that the limited on-site provision would be inadequate for some uses, resulting in overspill parking, vehicles manoeuvring and searching for spaces, and potential obstruction or inconvenience in relation to pedestrian access for the apartments and access and parking for the rear courtyard dwellings. Such effects could give rise to noise, and disturbance resulting in harm to living conditions.

I recognise that the former public house use could itself generate noise and activity. The appellant relies on a 2023 noise assessment prepared in support of the planning application for three apartments and retention of the public house, which indicates that public house use could be managed without unacceptable harm to living conditions of future occupiers of the apartments. However, that assessment was specific to the operation and layout of a public house and cannot reliably be extrapolated to the full range of activities potentially falling within [name] and F2, which may differ materially in nature, intensity, and hours. Accordingly, while it offers reassurance in relation to public house use, it attracts limited weight for the appeal proposal.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of existing occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to noise and disturbance. Accordingly, it conflicts with policies CP3 and BE1 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2008-2029 (the Local Plan) with regard to their requirements for development to protect the amenity of residents, be of a scale and nature appropriate to its locality and clearly and convincingly demonstrate it will have a positive impact on matters including amenity by avoiding development which causes disturbance through unreasonable traffic generation, noise, light, dust, fumes or other disturbance.

The appeal proposal would allow a wide range of uses within [name] and F2, which could generate materially different levels and patterns of activity. As the Council’s evidence indicates, some uses such as cafes or medical services could attract frequent short-stay visits, others may involve staffing across longer hours, and some may require regular deliveries, collections, or servicing. As a consequence, trip generation and parking demand could vary significantly depending on the use that takes occupation.

The main entrance to the building is directly from the footway on [address]. The vehicular access to the side would be shared with the existing residential dwellings to the rear of the appeal site. The courtyard area is associated with the dwellings and allows access to their parking spaces. Due to the layout and dimensions, which I saw on site, it would provide minimal turning opportunities, particularly for larger service vehicles. As it is unclear what level of delivery and servicing activity would occur, or the likely size and type of vehicles involved, in the context of the site constraints, including the shared nature of the access, there could be conflict of movements between vehicles and pedestrians which would be harmful to highway safety.

There is no unrestricted on-street parking immediately adjacent to the appeal site due to waiting restrictions. Although some on-street parking is available elsewhere on the street, it was evident from my site visit that parking demand in the vicinity is high. The A51 is a main thoroughfare into Lichfield city centre and is accordingly well trafficked. If activity associated with the premises were to exceed the limited on-site provision, overspill parking and vehicles circulating or stopping in search of spaces could add to congestion and create conflict with through-traffic and pedestrians, to the detriment of highway safety.

I acknowledge that some uses within [name] and F2 could operate acceptably in this sustainable location, with access to public transport and pedestrian routes. Furthermore, it is recognised that impacts will vary in the Council’s Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document, which in [name] provides guidance on car and cycle parking requirements for specific uses. Requirements vary between specific uses within what is now Class E, and the evidence available is not sufficient to establish what would be appropriate level of parking. However, the appeal seeks a flexible permission without sufficient evidence to establish the likely intensity of use, parking demand and servicing arrangements that could reasonably arise

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety, with particular regard to parking and servicing. As such, there would be conflict with policy ST2 of the Local Plan in so far as it requires development to make appropriate provision for off street parking having regard to the anticipated demand for parking arising from the use proposed or other uses to which the development may be put without needing planning permission.

The appellant contends that the Council ought to have sought additional information before refusing the application. However, my task is to assess the proposal on its merits and on the basis of the evidence available to me, rather than to examine the authority’s handling of the application.

Allowing the appeal would broaden the uses possible for the currently empty former public house premises. Bringing empty premises back into use is supported by policies in the Local Plan and the Framework aimed at making efficient use of land, encouraging the re-use of previously developed land and buildings, and supporting economic development and employment uses. This weighs in favour of

A change of use would result in the permanent loss of the public house. The Framework seeks to guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services. However, it has not operated as a public house since 2020 and the Council’s officer report acknowledges that use may no longer be commercially viable, taking account of changes in ownership and other public house provision locally. The report further notes that it is no longer registered as an asset of community value, and subject to effects on occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, an appropriate re-use would be acceptable. Accordingly, notwithstanding the Council’s later suggestion in their appeal statement that the loss of the public house weighs against the appeal, I accord moderate positive weight to its potential re-use.

I have considered the scope for addressing the concerns through planning conditions. However, it is my view that the absence of sufficient detail means that appropriately precise and reasonable conditions could not be imposed. In these circumstances, conditions would not meet the necessary tests and would be insufficient to render the proposal acceptable.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. The potential re use of the site is a material consideration that weighs in favour of the scheme. However, the totality of other material considerations would not justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

For these reasons I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.