Appeal 6005066

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant considers that the use of a C3 dwelling as a small-scale young person’s home does not constitute a material change of use. Nonetheless, planning permission was sought and subsequently refused by the Council. The lawfulness of the proposed use is not a matter I am required to consider as part of this S78 appeal1. I must therefore determine the appeal as presented to me.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal upon on highway safety.

The proposed home would accommodate up to 3 looked-after young people, occupied with carers in a family style environment. Typically, staffing would be on a 1:1 basis resulting in up to 3 members of staff present during the day, with 2 carers resident overnight. Staff handovers would take place at set times in the mornings and evenings.

The appeal site comprises a detached, 2-storey 4 bedroom dwelling, occupying a corner plot within a modern housing estate laid out to home zone standard. It has no private off-street parking provision aside from a double garage to the rear. To the south-east of the dwelling is a turning head serving the street, arranged in a courtyard form with designated parking bays around its perimeter.

Policy BNE1 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012-2026 states that developments must not cause severe residual cumulative highways impact, nor prejudice highway or pedestrian safety, the free flow of traffic, or reduce the number of available parking 1 Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. spaces. In this regard, it is consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

At shift changeover times, there may be up to 5 staff arriving or departing by car. At other times, given the likely staffing levels, up to 3 cars could be parked at the appeal site. In addition, there would likely be intermittent visits from social workers and other professionals. While the appellant suggests that activity would be comparable to that of a typical family dwelling, I have not been provided with any baseline data of the actual existing occupancy, car ownership details or vehicle movements per day. I am told that the double garage provides just one car parking space for the existing dwelling and this has not been disputed.

Although an amended layout shows 4 parking spaces, all would be located outside the appeal site on land intended for adoption as highway. As such, they would function as on-street spaces beyond the appellant’s ownership and control. Furthermore, the Highway Authority advises that the spaces would not meet minimum size standards, such that vehicles would overhang and encroach further into the highway than indicated. The evidence before me indicates that these areas were designed to facilitate access and manoeuvring for residents and service vehicles.

During my site visit, I observed parking in front of the garage similar to that proposed. This demonstrated that such parking would encroach into the manoeuvring space. When taken together with existing parking bays, this would materially reduce the area available for vehicles to turn and exit in a forward gear. This would be particularly problematic for larger vehicles, including refuse and emergency services.

In the absence of a swept path analysis or other compelling evidence, I am not persuaded that larger vehicles could safely manoeuvre in the turning head. This could lead to vehicles reversing along [address]. Given the bend in the road and absence of segregation between pedestrians and vehicles, conflict and harm to highway and pedestrian safety is likely to arise.

The appellant refers to existing informal parking arrangements and the historical use of the spaces identified for parking, without difficulty. This is, however, disputed by third parties and, in any event, informal arrangements do not provide a reliable basis for assessing the implications of a permanent change of use.

I am not satisfied that the proposal would provide sufficient or suitably controlled parking to meet the likely demand. Even if I could accept that the overall daily movements arising from the proposal were comparable to those of a family dwelling, the availability and exclusive use of the proposed car parking spaces cannot be ensured.

Without a realistic prospect of the land being brought within the appellant’s control and laid out to an acceptable standard, the suggested management plan or a Grampian-style condition, would not be reasonable or enforceable. The relevant tests for planning conditions would not be met in this instance2.

Drawing these matters together, the proposal would fail to provide adequate parking and would rely on shared, uncontrolled areas. This would be likely to prejudice the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians, and interfere with the designed operation of the highway. I therefore find that the proposal would have 2 As set out at paragraph 57 of the Framework and 003 [name]: 21a-003-20190723 of the Planning Practice Guidance. an unacceptable impact upon highway safety, and it would fail to accord with Policy BNE1 of the Chorley Local Plan (2015), as set out above. Conflict is also found with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework which seek to prevent an unacceptable impact on highway safety and require safe and suitable access to the site for all users.

The proposal would provide care for up to 3 looked-after young persons who may be deemed to be vulnerable and may have protected characteristics. Their needs fall to be considered under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)3. This requires decision-makers to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. In reaching my decision, I have kept these interests at the forefront of my mind. However, they are qualified rights, and interference may be justified where it is in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key.

It is a legitimate and well-established planning policy aim to support the provision of accommodation for different groups within the community, including those in need of care. However, unlike the [name] appeal decision4, I have not been provided with any up-to-date information that there is a national need for this type of accommodation. It has not been evidenced that there is a critical need for the development or that there are currently no alternative options available for young people in care, particularly in this location. Neither has it been demonstrated that the appeal site is the only location suitable for the proposal. Having carefully considered the potential benefits, dismissal of the scheme would be a proportionate response to the well-established planning objectives of ensuring highway safety for all users.

Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has 3 overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways. These include economic, social and environmental objectives. However, paragraph 9 of the Framework is clear, that these objectives should be delivered through the application of policies in the Framework and that they are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged.

Given my reasoning above, I am not satisfied that the proposal would contribute positively to the creation of a safe and well-functioning environment, such that it could be considered to meet social and environmental objectives. In any event, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not displace the primacy of the development plan. Permission should not normally be granted where a proposal conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As discussed above, conflict is found with the

In the absence of a certificate of lawful proposed development, I cannot be satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the proposed change of use occurring, such that it could attract weight as a fallback position.

I do not doubt that other planning permissions exist for proposals of a similar size and nature to the appeal scheme, such as the [name] development. However, that decision does not provide sufficient detail regarding the site context and 3 Contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. 4 highway safety was not identified as a main issue. While a management plan condition was imposed on that permission, there is nothing to suggest that it relied on or addressed parking provision outside the site. This example does not affect my findings.

The absence of harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are neutral matters that weigh, neither for, nor against the proposal.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan. There are no considerations either individually or cumulatively of sufficient weight to outweigh the identified harm. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.