Appeal 6004195

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal form refers to Units 1 and 2 at [address]. However, the original application form gives the site address as Units 1, 2 and 3 and the appeal will be decided on that basis.

An extract has been provided indicating that an [name] has been served in relation to land at Units 1-3 but no detail has been provided of the alleged breach. At the time of my visit the roller shutter doors on two of the units were closed whilst the third was half open. There is a sign on the end unit facing [address] advertising [name].

These are: • The effect of the proposed use on highway and pedestrian safety; and • The effect on the living conditions of adjoining residents.

The units to be converted were permitted in 1999 in conjunction with a former coach builder’s garage. The appeal site also includes a building to the east which is a car mechanics business. The Council accepts that this is an existing Class B2 use. The proposal would allow for the expansion of the existing operation.

The site is within an area comprising dense terraced housing and is adjacent to two schools ([name] and [name]) with over 500 pupils in total. There are other commercial uses in the vicinity, including a haulage company. [address] is subject to a 20mph speed limit and there are yellow zig zag lines and [name] markings outside both schools. Roadside parking is prevalent along both [address] and the narrow surrounding streets. Many vehicles partly park on the pavement.

The parking standards of the Pendle Local Plan require 12 off-street spaces for the existing and proposed Class B2 uses. The submitted layout plan shows 5 spaces in front of Units 1 and 2. On this basis there would be a shortfall.

However, the evidence from multiple sources, including my own observations, indicate that the small yard area is already heavily parked by vehicles. The constraints of the site mean that they are likely to have to reverse out onto [address] to allow others to drive onto it. The highway authority noted that this led to vehicles waiting on the highway at a time when parents and children were moving along [address] to attend the schools. They also report seeing vehicles being repaired on the road as well as double parking and obstruction in [address] and [address].

There is ample anecdotal and photographic evidence from local residents to indicate that the existing use is causing safety and other issues. In particular, that overspill parking associated with the car repair business occurs on surrounding streets and, at times, outside the schools. Furthermore, that accessing the schools on foot is difficult due to indiscriminate parking. It is also said that the police have attended in order to remove vehicles. The appellant has not countered any of these claims.

On the face of it, increasing the floor area of the car repair use by roughly doubling its size would be liable to exacerbate the current situation. The appellant nonetheless contends that this would lead to improvements as the expansion would allow for more vehicles to be worked on inside, with less waiting on the street and greater operational efficiency. However, there is no detail about how the business operates currently and how exactly it would change if the proposal were to take place. In particular, where the vehicles currently packed into the yard would be kept. Indeed, it seems more likely that the throughput of vehicles would increase with more arrivals and collections and consequently more storage demand.

The surrounding area is already heavily saturated with parked cars. In turn, this puts severe pressure on the local road environment, especially at peak times such as school drop off and collection. Moreover, there are safety issues associated with haphazard parking and a child pedestrian injury was recorded outside the appeal site in January 2025. Indeed, the juxtaposition of the proposed use with the parking restrictions outside the schools is of particular concern. Their proximity and the small area of the site means that occasional flouting of the [name] regulation cannot be ruled out.

In short, the proposal would be likely to increase the capacity of the existing use which, in turn, would lead to additional parking of vehicles in the heavily congested surrounding area. It would not comply with the relevant parking standard. Particular safety risks would arise in connection with the proximity to two schools and the likely consequences for vulnerable pedestrians. Overall, there would be an unacceptable impact on highway and pedestrian safety and conflict with the expectations of Policies SP13 and DM37 of the Pendle Local Plan on transport, connectivity and parking.

Local Plan Policy DM16 expects that a good standard of amenity for all existing occupants of buildings should be secured. A car repair business has the potential to cause disruption to those living nearby due to vehicle movements within the garage premises; engine testing and repair activities; the use of machinery such as air tools, compressors and lifts and interactions between staff and customers. The units back directly onto the housing in [address] and representations refer to noise and disturbance caused by the existing operations.

The current Class B2 use would continue in any event and the appellant suggests that the proposal would improve amenity by allowing for more work to be undertaken indoors, with less vehicle idling and better management of the workflow. Mitigation could be provided by limiting the hours of use, providing sound insulation and prohibiting external repairs. However, there is no indication of how effective such measures would be. Whilst there might be no new noise sources, the working area would be larger and it is also likely that activity would increase in line with the greater available capacity.

A petition of non-objection from addresses in [address] has been submitted. However, the proposal is too close to existing housing to be accepted given the uncertainty over the implications and the likely effectiveness of the suggested conditions. The effect on the living conditions of adjoining residents would be harmful and contrary to Policy DM16.

The National Planning Policy Framework provides that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth. The proposal would enable a small business to expand in a sustainable, urban location although the appellant suggests that it would not lead to greater productivity by increasing custom. Neither would there be any new staff. In any event, the limitations of the site, particular the lack of space for parking, turning and servicing and the close relationship with housing mean that any economic advantages do not outweigh the harm identified.

The proposed use would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations that override this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.