Appeal 6004032

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed change of use of the whole building from mixed use (commercial & residential) to a single residential dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/1193/FUL, dated 17/09/2025, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos. Floor Plan ID101 and Location Plan dated 17 September 2025.

The main issue is the impact of the proposal on the highway network in relation to parking provision.

The appeal site is located within Uppingham Town Centre. There are mix of commercial uses along [address] East although the appeal site is located towards the edge of the [address] where there are some residential uses. Traffic is permitted one way along [address] East with a variety of parking restrictions in place including the use of double yellow lines, single yellow line (no parking Monday -Saturday 8am to 8pm) and designated parking bays which can be used by resident permit holders in an unrestricted manner or by any other motorists for a maximum of 2 hours.

Consent is sought to convert the existing building into a single large residential dwelling. Currently the building is in mixed use with a business selling antique furniture and artwork with an associated workshop on the ground floor with a split-level residential flat located across the first and second floor of the building. I understand that the commercial use of the property began in the 1970s and the residential use is also long established. Only one set of existing plans has been provided because no external or internal changes are proposed. This existing flat has 8 main rooms, plus an en-suite, shower room and WC. With 10 main rooms on the ground floor this would be a substantial 3 storey residential property that could comfortably accommodate a large family.

The Council’s parking standards are set out within Appendix 2 of Rutland Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) and they indicate that 3 dedicated parking spaces should be provided for a large dwelling with at least 8 habitable rooms. There is no dedicated parking associated with the appeal building although the existing occupiers of the residential flat hold 2 parking permits which allows them to park on [address] East if there is a space available. Given the mixed use of the site there would be traffic movements associated with both the residential use and the ground floor commercial business. Traffic movements associated with the ground floor commercial use are likely to involve customers coming and going throughout the day when [address] East is at its busiest. Given this context, it seems highly unlikely that the loss of the commercial use and replacement with a single larger dwelling would result in more vehicle movements. I therefore consider that the proposal complies with Section 5Q of the [name] for [name] as I am satisfied the scheme would not provide insufficient parking and consequently wouldn’t have negative impacts on how [address] East functions.

I am aware that the Council has indicated that there is no guarantee that the existing parking permits would be extended or that any additional permits would be granted for the proposed occupiers. However, on my site visit I noticed that there were long stay car parks within the Town Centre and unrestricted parking available a short distance from the site on residential streets. Furthermore, the site is in a sustainable location within the Town Centre providing access to a range of shops and services within a short walking distance. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed change of use would not have an adverse impact on parking provision within the Town Centre.

Appendix 2 sets out that where parking requirements will not be met justification should be provided and I am aware that the Council requested that the appellant undertake parking surveys. However, given the existing mixed use, which includes residential and the minor nature of the appeal proposal I am satisfied that a survey is not required in this instance. It is pertinent that Policy SP15 of the Rutland Local Plan Site Allocations & [name] allows parking standards to be varied in exceptional circumstances, such as within the Town Centre of Uppingham to reflect the accessibility of the site. This is applicable to the circumstances identified in this case.

In summary, I have found that there would be adequate parking available for the proposed development and consequently the proposal would have no discernible adverse impact on the safety of highways users or the free flow of traffic. This is in full accordance with policy SP15 of the Rutland Local Plan Site Allocations & [name]. Amongst other matters the policy sets out that developments should make provision for safe access for all users, provide adequate vehicle parking facilities and not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the highway network. It would also accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which only seeks to refuse development on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Concerns have been raised that allowing the proposal without a parking survey would set a precedent for future development. However, each application must be assessed on its own merits taking account of the specific characteristics of each individual site. In this context, I am satisfied that allowing this appeal would not set a precedent.

The appeal site is located within Uppingham Conservation Area and there is a nearby listed building. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Additionally, Section 72 (1) of the LPCA requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. In addition, the Framework requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets. No external changes to the building are proposed through this appeal scheme. On this basis the proposal would have no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would preserve the setting of the listed building.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.