Appeal 6005190

The appeal is dismissed.

Emerging plan Hounslow Local Plan 2020-2041 is programmed to be adopted in

Although the emerging plan is at an advanced stage and is a material consideration, at the current time it does not form part of the statutory development plan. As such I give it only limited weight in my assessment of the appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in regard to noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the development on highway safety.

The appeal site is accessed via a lane off [address] and comprises a forecourt area and a number of single storey structures, including a large concrete blockwork garage with two large garage doors. There are several other car garages on [address] and the surrounding area is predominantly formed of residential housing, although there are other forms of development within the locality, including shops, restaurants, schools and offices. The site has an independent vehicle access, enclosed by gates and metal fencing. The business on the site currently operates as a tyre fitting/repair centre.

No external changes are proposed as part of the change of use. Within the building a single vehicle MOT bay is proposed, with two designated MOT parking spaces outside. Plastic strip curtains are also proposed in addition to the two garage doors.

The appeal site is surrounded by noise-sensitive receptors, including residential properties; such as the first-floor flats across the lane from the appeal site. Yet, no noise assessment has been submitted in relation to the impact of the proposed change of use on noise sensitive receptors in the area. Although curtains would be fitted at the garage doors there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that these would be sufficient to mitigate the noise impact of the development. The nature and intensity of activities associated with an MOT testing centre, including machinery operation, vehicle movements, and potential external working, pose a risk of unacceptable noise and disturbance to neighbouring residential properties.

The appellant refers to the existence of similar existing uses, linked to vehicle maintenance and repair close to the appeal site. While these examples are relevant in demonstrating a similar use within close proximity to residential properties, there is no evidence before me regarding the noise impact of these developments or their effect on nearby sensitive receptors. Without such information, it is not possible to draw meaningful comparisons or conclude that the impacts of the current proposal would be acceptable. Each site must be assessed on its own merits, and the presence of existing garages do not justify the potential harm I have identified in relation to the proposed use.

For the reasons detailed above, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in regard to noise and disturbance. Therefore, it conflicts with policies CC2 and EQ5 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (HLP) which require that developments have a positive impact on the amenity of current and future residents and demonstrate that new plant and machinery do not harm the amenity of neighbouring properties and generate a noise level that is at least 10dB below the background noise level.

During my site visit, while only a snapshot in time, I observed that the local highway network is already subject to significant on-street parking pressures and traffic congestion. [address] serves as a key pedestrian route for local families and children accessing nearby schools, convenience stores, and places of worship. Additionally, the lane that serves the appeal site is actively used by neighbouring residential occupiers and a number of vehicle repair and maintenance businesses.

The appellant has not provided any meaningful information on existing or projected trip generation. Without this, it is unclear whether the proposal would materially intensify vehicle movements or the associated impacts. It is reasonable to consider that the introduction of this new activity could potentially increase traffic from customers, staff, and deliveries. This added activity could worsen local congestion and increase reliance on public highway parking in an already constrained area.

The proposed plan indicates that four parking spaces would be provided within the appeal site. Still, it is unclear that cars utilising these spaces could enter and exit the site in forward gear; or that vehicles could be manoeuvred within the site if all of the parking spaces were being used. In addition, as detailed above, the supporting information does not clearly explain the usage level of the site as existing and if the proposed development would intensify usage levels. As such, it is unclear what number of parking spaces would be utilised by the proposed development. It is therefore uncertain to what extent the appeal scheme would compromise access for residents of the rear flats, who may rely on the access lane for passage to and from their homes. Notably, any obstruction in this area could also impede access for emergency services, posing a potential safety risk.

While it is acknowledged that the access lane is not a dead end, the plans do not clearly demonstrate how vehicles would safely enter or exit the site. The absence of clear manoeuvring arrangements raises concerns about how reversing vehicles and frequent activity associated with the appeal site would be managed to maintain a safe environment for pedestrians and other road users. No further detail Is provided to demonstrate how the MOT, service and parking bays would be used. Consequently, it remains unclear whether vehicles could utilise these bays or turn around without risk of collision with the building walls or other vehicles. This lack of defined turning space could result in unsafe manoeuvres, including reversing onto the road, thereby posing a hazard to both road users and pedestrians.

Although the appellant contends that the site and surrounding area has been used for car service and maintenance for several years and traffic in the area is well managed, it does not mitigate the potential impact of the proposal. Although the appeal site is within a mixed-use area, there is no clear evidence that highway safety impacts have been properly assessed or that adequate mitigation measures have been proposed.

In reaching this view, I have considered that the proposed development would operate on a relatively small scale, with a single MOT bay available by appointment. I also acknowledge that the site may benefit from access to public transport. Still, these factors do not mitigate the highway safety concerns identified in relation to the proposed development. Similarly, while there may be a need for an MOT test centre in the area, it does not resolve the highway safety issues associated with the proposed use.

For the reasons detailed above the proposed development would have a harmful effect on highway safety. Therefore, it conflicts with Policy EC2 of the HLP which requires that developments demonstrate that adverse impacts on the transport network are avoided.

The proposal would generate modest economic benefits through its conversion and use. As an MOT test centre. It would also provide a service to the community, which may complement existing vehicular services in the area. Nonetheless, given the limited scale of the proposed development, these benefits are relatively minor 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 taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.