Appeal 6004346

The appeal is dismissed.

An acoustic assessment has been provided with the appeal which was not before the Council when it made its decision. The document is supplementary to the Noise Management Plan which was provided at application stage. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the acoustic assessment as part of the appeal process. I have therefore taken the assessment into account in my consideration of the appeal.

It is presented that off site parking arrangements have been agreed at two alternative locations, providing a total of 160 overspill car parking spaces. However, these sites are not within the red line site location plan for the proposal, nor are they within the control of the appellant. In the absence of a formal means of securing these sites for parking, such as a legal agreement, I cannot be satisfied that these alternative sites would remain available for parking to serve the proposed use. I therefore have not taken parking provision within these sites into account as part of my assessment.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on highway safety, with particular regard to access arrangements and parking provision; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site occupies a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The surrounding area includes a mix of uses including a parade of commercial uses fronting [address], and residential premises.

The existing building within the appeal site, which I understand to have previously been in operation as a bank, occupies a substantial area of the site. However, there remains an area of hardstanding marked as car parking spaces to the north of the building, accessed via an established access from [address].

The proposal seeks to change the use of the site to a community church and place of worship. The proposed use would operate primarily on Sunday mornings and limited weekday evenings, with the evidence before me suggesting that the typical congregation size would be around 50 people.

Sustainable transport options would be available to users of the site including bus and cycle routes, the latter of which could be facilitated by the provision of cycle stands, one of several measures set out within the submitted Travel Plan with the intention of reducing car dependency.

Nevertheless, as is evidenced by the results of a travel survey of the congregation, it is expected that travel by car, either as a solo trip or through a car share arrangement, would remain a notable proportion of travel to the appeal site. The submitted [name] suggests that even with car sharing, the actual number of vehicle arrivals at times of worship could equate to up to 17 cars.

Policy LP13 of the Peterborough Local Plan (2019) (PLP) outlines in part that for uses outside of [name], B, C and D1, the number and nature of parking spaces should have regard to surrounding conditions and cumulative impacts. It does not dictate minimum standards for parking provision for the proposed use. However, the evidence before me indicates that vehicular usage to the site would likely exceed the available car parking provision of 15 spaces. This in turn would place additional demand on street parking in the surrounding area.

Whilst representing a snapshot in time, during my site visit I noted that car parking availability in the surrounding area was limited. This corresponds with the wider evidence which suggests that street parking is regularly constrained. Even if a traffic marshal were to be present, a lack of available parking spaces could lead to an increased likelihood of obstructive parking, which would have associated detrimental impacts to highway safety through an increased risk of vehicle and pedestrian conflict.

Moreover, in the absence of swept path diagrams for the existing spaces within the car park, I remain to be satisfied that the car park could operate at full capacity whilst still allowing for sufficient space for vehicles to manoeuvre. Not only would this potentially lead to additional on street parking demand, but it could also result in vehicles having to reverse out of the car park onto the highway. Even where vehicles could turn within the site and leave in a forward gear, I have not been presented with either pedestrian or vehicular visibility splays for the access.

The proposed use is likely to result in peak demands around times of worship, creating an influx of vehicles arriving and departing at broadly the same time. Thus, even if the existing car park and access has operated without recorded collisions in the past, I find that the proposed use, at peak times, would represent an intensified use of the appeal site. Consequently, there would be an increased risk of conflict between vehicles or conflict between vehicles and pedestrians through use of the established access.

Based on the above, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety, with particular regard to access arrangements and parking provision. It would therefore be contrary to Policy LP13 of the PLP which in addition to parking provision, also requires appropriate provision to be made for safe access to, from and within the site.

Whilst paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) refers to a severe threshold in relation to residual cumulative impacts on the road network, it also directs refusal for development if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Given my conclusions above, I have therefore also identified conflict with the Framework.

Policy LP17 of the PLP relates in part to the amenity of existing occupiers, stating that new development should not result in an unacceptable impact including in terms of noise, which would result in disturbance for the occupiers of any nearby property. Policy LP30 of the PLP, in reference to community facilities, requires proposals to be operated without detriment to local residents, especially where facilities are open in the evening.

The evidence sets out that the proposed use would generate noise, including congregational singing and live music through amplification. The submitted Noise Management Plan (NMP) outlines various mitigation measures to limit noise emissions. These measures include the installation of mechanical ventilation, with the intention for all external windows and doors to the auditorium and ground floor community rooms to be closed during any amplified sound activity. The acoustic assessment is clear that without this, breakout of noise would increase materially.

The auditorium is proposed to be positioned on the first floor in relatively close proximity to the residential properties on [address]. The room would be served by several windows. Even if I were to be satisfied that the noise emissions from the proposed mechanical ventilation could be controlled by condition, I do not find that the requirement for all windows and doors to be closed during times of worship could be conditioned in a way which would meet the tests set out in the Framework.

[name] note the intentions to appoint a ‘[name], during the warmer months, I find it unreasonable to expect that members of the congregation would not seek to open the windows to allow for increased fresh air and ventilation if the room were to be at capacity. It would be unrealistic for the Council to enforce a condition requiring the windows and doors to remain closed. In addition, there are other measures such as car doors being closed quietly rather than slammed which would be impractical to control.

I therefore cannot be satisfied that the mitigation measures outlined would sufficiently control noise and disturbance. The proposed development would therefore have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance, notably at times of peak activity such as times of worship which includes weekends and evenings. Based on this I have identified conflict with Policies LP17 and LP30 of the PLP.

The proposal would retain the existing external façade of the building, thereby not imposing harm to the character an appearance of the area. Nevertheless, this does not specifically weigh in favour of the proposal.

The appeal site has an existing Class E use. I accept that it could therefore be reasonably brought into use for various uses without seeking planning approval. I have considered whether an alternative use would represent either equal or worse harm which could justify the grant of the appeal proposal.

However, the harm which I have identified above arises from the specific circumstances of the appeal proposal, namely the likelihood of intensified peak usage of the site which would amount to large gatherings of people at specific times. As above, I have found that these would be disruptive from both a highways perspective and in respect to neighbouring living conditions.

I have little before me to suggest that an alternative use, which could come forwards without the need for planning permission, would be directly comparable to the effects of the appeal proposal, to a degree which I could make a meaningful comparison which would justify the harm arising from the appeal development.

The proposal would lead to benefits including bringing a vacant building in a sustainable location back into an active use whilst making a positive contribution to social cohesion and community wellbeing. [name] have attached moderate weight to these benefits, they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified in respect to both of the main issues above, the combination of which I have attached significant weight.

I have concluded that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no other material considerations which indicate planning permission should be granted. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.