Appeal 6004727

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has provided an Ancient Woodland Impact Assessment, a Noise Impact Assessment and a Transport Technical Appeal Note in support of their appeal. The planning appeals procedural guidance1 sets out that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. However, in this case, the reports were submitted in response to the Council’s reasons for refusal and therefore would not result in a substantially different scheme from that which had been submitted to and considered by the Council. The parties have had the opportunity to comment on this information through the appeal process. As such, having regard to relevant caselaw2, I am satisfied that no prejudice would occur to any party as a result of my consideration of their content.

The Council’s third reason for refusal relates to insufficient information being provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in the loss or deterioration of the adjacent Ancient Woodland and its buffer zone. The Ancient Woodland Impact Assessment provided by the appellant concluded that the proposal would protect the Ancient Woodland. The Council has confirmed that it no longer wishes to pursue this reason for refusal. I see no reason to disagree and, accordingly, I have not considered this matter any further. 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37] and Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin).

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance; and • highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision.

The site comprises a large, detached outbuilding of a utilitarian appearance. The surrounding area is predominantly formed of residential housing, although there are other uses within the locality, including some commercial units. The proposal seeks to change of use of the existing building for mixed uses including an eatery, gym space, co-working office space, and as recording studio space.

The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) submitted with the planning application undertook an assessment of the predicted noise breakout from the site with respect to the closest identified noise sensitive receptors. The NIA provided a sound model which assumed noise breakout levels from the proposed uses of the building. The appellant’s Appeal Statement clarified that the recording studio was labelled in the NIA as an event space. On this basis, I am satisfied that the report reflects the proposed uses.

The NIA predicted sound levels were based on the breakout levels from windows, doors, and the open courtyard area of the building. However, the assessment undertaken within the NIA does not appear to have factored the existing building into the sound model, so the sound performance of the existing built fabric is not known. Therefore, I cannot be certain that the building fabric would have the ability to successfully attenuate noise from all the proposed uses.

The appeal is accompanied by an updated Noise Impact Assessment (the appeal NIA). [name] note the overview of the proposed acoustic improvements to the building set out within the Design and [name], the sound model within the appeal NIA focused on breakout noise from windows and doors. As such, it remains unclear whether it would be possible to make the building acoustically suitable to accommodate the proposed uses.

The recommendations included in the appeal NIA include the enhancement of the building envelope to achieve superior levels of sound insulation and the effective management of possible flank noise through structural elements. However, the appeal NIA recognised that it is not known whether the existing building structure could handle any of the structural enhancements recommended in the report. Therefore, I cannot be confident that the proposed measures would be feasible, deliverable and effectively mitigate the noise levels associated with the proposal.

As such, I am not satisfied that the noise evidence before me provides a robust assessment of the noise effects associated with the proposed development and would accurately reflect the experience of nearby occupiers. Whilst planning conditions could, in principle, be imposed, I am not satisfied that they could meet the relevant tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), given the identified shortcomings in both noise reports and the uncertainty as to whether effects of noise and disturbance could be adequately controlled.

Consequently, the scheme failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy EN7 of the Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015 (ADMP), which seeks to ensure adequate living conditions for occupiers of development in relation to noise.

ADMP Policy T2 sets out that vehicle parking provision should be made in accordance with advice by Kent County Council as Local Highway Authority or until such time as non-residential standards are adopted. I am directed to the Kent Design Guide Supplementary Guidance: Kent County Council’s Parking Standards (SPD), which sets out the parking standards for non-residential uses.

The SPD sets out that, for mixed-use developments, the parking provisions should first be determined for each constituent land use or building, both with reference to the applicable standards in this document and potentially also through an accumulation assessment on the TRICS database (or similar). There may be scope to reduce overall parking through shared provision between uses.

The planning application included a [name] (TS), which set out that were the proposed uses to operate concurrently and at full capacity, the proposal would require approximately 156 car parking spaces. The scheme would provide some 40 parking spaces on site.

The submission at appeal stage is accompanied by a Transport Technical Appeal Note (TN) which provides further details regarding the proposed parking provision and the proposed hours of operation. The TN has undertaken a trip generation assessment to assess the number of trips associated with the proposal using the [name] (TRICS) database and resulting parking accumulation profile across an average day.

However, the figures obtained from TRICS regarding the proposed uses were taken from a small number of sites. Given that little justification for the selected sites has been provided, this reduces the robustness of the assessment. Since the parking accumulation assessment was based on TRICS data, I cannot be certain that the figures provided would reflect the likely level of car parking associated with the proposal, particularly on Tuesday – Saturday, when the peak operation of the site is expected to occur.

The evidence indicates that the site can be reached by bus or train. However, the TS advises that the closest bus stops operate on weekdays only with a service every 3 hours. [site address] rail station offers services every 30 minutes, though it serves very few destinations. Overall, the provision of public transport in the area is limited, but walking and cycling to the site would be possible for those living locally. However, it is not clear from the evidence how the availability of these options would reduce the parking demand.

The TN advises that the auditorium would be utilised for church services and would replace the existing facility at [name]. The parking demand associated with this use has been projected considering the congregation size of the existing facility, and therefore it provides a satisfactory assessment of congregation numbers and likely parking demand. The TN advises that some 20 car parking spaces would be required for the auditorium. As this would be the only use operating on site on Sundays, the proposed number of parking spaces would likely be suitable.

However, it remains unclear whether the proposed number of parking spaces would be appropriate to serve the uses that would operate on the other days. The TS sets out that a shuttle bus service would be operated on a Sunday when public transport provision is limited. Still, even if details of this service were to be secured by condition, the evidence indicates that it would not operate on other days, when demand for parking would be high.

The assessment of the parking restrictions on the local highway network within the TN shows that double yellow lines or private parking restrictions exist within the area. However, some opportunities for on-street parking would remain on nearby streets and given the uncertainty with regard to the proposed parking provision, I cannot rule out potential conflict between users at busy times. As such, while I note that the swept path analysis provided within the TN shows that the parking spaces to the sides of the building could be safely accessed, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

[name] note the appellant’s willingness to accept conditions which would cap the maximum occupancy of the site, I am not persuaded that any such conditions would be practicable, reasonable or meet the test of enforceability. Further, given the level of uncertainty with regard to the proposed parking provision and the availability of public transport, particularly during peak times, I am not persuaded that the submission of a Travel Plan and of a Parking Management Plan, is a matter that can be left to a condition.

Having regard to the above, I am not satisfied that the parking provision to support the proposed development has been adequately justified. Consequently, I cannot rule out the proposed parking would be insufficient to serve the scheme, therefore potentially leading to overspill parking on the local highway network.

Thus, the proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate that it would not have a harmful effect on highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision. On this basis, the proposal would be contrary to [name] EN1, T1 and T2, which amongst other things support high quality design, set out vehicle parking provision and require new developments to mitigate their impact on safety.

Planning permission has been granted by the Council for mixed-use developments at the [name] Centre3 and The Hub4. [name] note the level of parking provision associated with each of these developments, I do not have full details of the circumstances that led to these proposals being accepted. Consequently, I cannot conclude that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal, 3 [name]: EDC/22/0084 4 [name]: EDC/24/0049 including in respect of development plan policy. As such, I have determined the appeal in its own merits.

The proposal would make an effective use of land by utilising an existing building and would provide a range commercial and community orientated uses for the local community. The proposal would likely assist in supporting economic growth. Given the scale of the proposed development, these benefits would be moderate in planning terms. Accordingly, they do not outweigh the harm identified under the main issues or the resulting conflicts with the development plan.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.