Appeal 6004044

The appeal is dismissed.

The existing site plan depicts that there is an existing office/WC building within the site’s north-western corner. However, when I conducted my visit, this was not the case although a building was located in the south-western corner. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted.

The main issues are: • The effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed No. 677 Green Lanes; • The effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to the levels of noise which would arise from it; and • The effects of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrians and cyclists.

The site lies within an area of mixed character, comprising both residential and commercial properties, the latter often featuring signage and, in some instances, the likes of awnings. A range of architectural styles are also represented. Nonetheless, many buildings feature distinctive, often traditional, detailing and collectively contribute to the area exhibiting a high quality of design.

Adjacent to the site is No. 677 Green Lanes (No. 677), a locally listed building. Formally a pub, its ground floor retains the likes of pilasters topped with ornately designed capitals. The building’s upper storeys include a distinctive approach to window design and distribution whilst its roofscape includes feature gable projections, chimneys and a turret. Consequently, No. 677’s architecture provides it with heritage significance, and it constitutes a non-designated heritage asset.

On completion of the development, a substantial proportion of the site would be covered by a structure identified by the plans as comprising of a polycarbonate roofing panel supported by a series of columns. Whilst not excessive in height, and likely to appear lightweight, the structure would, nonetheless, be rudimentary in appearance such that it would unacceptably contrast with the prevailing quality of built development in the area. The structure would be viewed in conjunction with, and experienced in close association with, No. 677. Its appearance would be at odds with No. 677’s architectural interest, represent an unbefitting addition within No. 677’s setting and, consequently, result in harm to the significance of it as a non-designated heritage asset.

Given the proportion of the site that would be occupied by this structure, together with the presence of the repair unit and tyre racks, I do not agree with the appellant that the development would, overall, result in any meaningful reduction in visual clutter. Certainly, no such reduction would result which would be sufficient to outweigh the design deficiencies of the aforementioned structure.

The appellant contends that the final material finish of this structure could be resolved through the imposition of a condition. However, very limited information has been provided as to which alternative materials beyond those clearly proposed by the submitted plans could be utilised. Consequently, I have little confidence appropriate alternatives could be used. In any event, irrespective of its material finishes, the structure would remain one with a rudimentary appearance.

For the reasons given above, the development would result in harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed No. 677 Green Lanes. As a result, the development conflicts with Policy SP12 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies document 2013-2016 which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure the conservation of the historic significance of Haringey’s heritage assets, including locally important heritage assets such as locally listed buildings. The development also conflicts with Policy DM1 of Haringey’s Development Management Development Plan Document (the DMDPD) which requires all new development to achieve a high standard of design and to contribute to the distinctive character of the local area, including by relating positively to neighbouring structures.

The Council’s refusal reason relevant to this main issue also refers to Policy D6 of the London Plan (the LP). However, since Policy D6 specifically relates to housing quality and standards, it is not relevant to the tyre fitting development proposed. Consequently, I find no conflict with LP Policy D6.

The area’s mixed character means that residential properties are located within the site’s surroundings. In particular, flats at [address] are closely positioned beside the site.

The development would involve tyre fitting and repair operations, including the use of specialist equipment. Some of this equipment would involve powered tools and mechanised processes. Despite the appellant’s assertions to the contrary, I consider it likely that the noise generated from the types of equipment required, and the operations involved in tyre fitting and repair, would be considerable.

I accept that the site is located next to a main thoroughfare, and there is an array of commercial premises in the area. The existing car sales business will itself involve comings and goings and, thus, some noise generation. However, the character of the noise arising from the proposed operations would differ from that which exists and prevails. Coupled with the frequency and intermittency of the operations, this means that there would be a clear propensity for the generated noise to be intrusive for the nearest residential occupiers.

In addition, the operating hours proposed are extensive – they would include operations taking place for much of the day on Saturdays and Sundays. Consequently, even at weekends, neighbouring occupiers would be afforded limited respite from the development’s activities and noise. The convenience store at No. 677 may have even more extensive opening hours than those proposed, but the character of the noise which the development would generate would be substantially different. Therefore, No. 677’s opening hours do not weigh in the proposal’s favour to any meaningful extent.

Furthermore, no noise impact assessment is before me nor other assessment which seeks to quantify the noise generation of the development. In their absence, no cogent evidence has been submitted which provides me with reasons to conclude that the development’s noise generation would be at a lower level than I anticipate or, otherwise, would be likely to be acceptably mitigated or subsumed into the existing noise climate.

The appellant states that a management plan could be devised. However, one is not before me, and I have limited evidence on what management measures it would be likely to contain. Consequently, the cited management plan does not address my concerns.

Therefore, I conclude that the effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to the levels of noise which would arise from it, would be unacceptably harmful. As a result, the development conflicts with LP Policy D13 and DMDPD Policy DM1. Together, in summary and amongst other matters, these Policies require developments to achieve a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers, address any issues of noise likely to arise and put in place measures to mitigate and manage their noise-related effects. Furthermore, the development conflicts with policy contained at paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out that developments should ensure a high standard of amenity and should promote health and well-being.

The highway beside the site is a main thoroughfare. Consequently, it will be heavily trafficked by a range of highway users including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

Neither the appellant nor the Council has provided a detailed breakdown of the vehicle movements associated with the existing car sales use, nor those predicted to be generated by the development. As a result, there is not firm evidence before me which demonstrates that the development would result in a material increase in vehicles accessing and egressing the site.

That said, tyre replacements and repairs can be carried out quite quickly and, on this basis, a quite frequent turnover of vehicles at the site can be expected to arise from the development. In comparison and as existing, cars may be for sale at the site and, in turn, be stationary for quite prolonged periods. Equally, however, I can also envisage cars being taken for test drives or being repositioned for various other reasons. Overall, I do anticipate that the tyre fitting use would be likely to bring with it the greater vehicle movements, however, this outcome has not been clearly demonstrated.

Despite the foregoing, there are facets of the development’s design and the site context which would mitigate the likelihood of any conflict between cyclists, pedestrians and the vehicle movements associated with the proposal. Firstly, the access is positioned on a straight length of road which would assist in maximising visibility for all highway users. Secondly, it is proposed that the existing crossover would be narrowed. This means that the vehicles would cross the footpath within a more tightly delineated area and, in turn, the access width which cyclists and pedestrians would be required to cross would be narrower. Thirdly, a dedicated waiting space is proposed which would assist with the management of customers and the prevention of indiscriminate parking.

Therefore, even if the development would generate more vehicular access and egress movements, factors apply which would minimise the potential for any effects prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists from taking place.

Just north of the site, at the signalised junction, there is not a dedicated pedestrian crossing to enable pedestrians to cross from one side of Green Lanes to the other. However, there is a dedicated crossing just to the south of the site and, overall, I have no reason to conclude that the highway infrastructure in the area is deficient, unsafe or cannot adequately cater for the development proposed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the effects of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrians and cyclists, would be acceptable. The development therefore complies with DMDPD Policy DM2 which seeks to ensure that developments can be used safely and easily by all, do not impede pedestrian and cycling permeability and, where appropriate, protect, improve and create safe and accessible pedestrian and cycling routes.

The development would generate employment opportunities, contribute to the local economy and provide the local area with a tyre fitting service. These are benefits, however, they are not sufficient to outweigh the harms I have identified in my first and second main issues.

The appellant asserts that the development complies with other development plan policies which I have not specifically referenced in my main issues. This includes Policies HC1, HC12 and D14 of the LP. However, the full content of those Policies is not before me. As a result, I cannot firstly conclude those Policies are relevant to the specific development proposed nor, secondly, the extent to which they are, or are not, complied with.

I have found that the development’s effects on highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrians and cyclists, would be acceptable. However, the development would result in harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed No. 677 Green Lanes, and result in unacceptably harmful effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers because of the levels of noise which would arise from it.

As a result, I have found that the development conflicts with a series of development plan policies and, overall, I conclude that it conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.