Appeal 6005210

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • pedestrian safety, highway safety, and the free flow of traffic; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, odour, and fumes.

The appeal site comprises an existing commercial unit located on the [address] in Pangbourne, which is currently in use as a barber shop. It is a traditional brick-built property forming part of a [address] parade, located in a mixed-use and commercially-orientated area, consisting of restaurants, cafés, retail outlets, and service-based businesses.

[address] consists of part of the A329, which is heavily-trafficked for much of the day due to this route being Pangbourne’s only vehicular crossing over the [name]. A short distance to the west of the site is a mini-roundabout. Not far from the site to the east is another mini-roundabout. Both of these roundabouts experience large volumes of traffic throughout a typical day. A pedestrian zebra crossing is located a few metres to the east of the site. Zig-zag markings associated with this crossing are present on the carriageway in front of the site. This crossing is heavily used by pedestrians as it is the only formal crossing place over the A329 between the 2 roundabouts mentioned above. ‘[name] parking restrictions are in place in the vicinity of the site.

Hot food takeaways are known for attracting vehicle movements, arising from customers arriving to collect orders. Such stops are often of limited duration, but raise concerns with respect to pedestrian and highway safety in the sensitive highway context mentioned above. In particular, there is no area for vehicles to park outside the site, for customers collecting a takeaway. Hence, parking would likely take place on the footway, in close proximity to the above-mentioned zebra crossing.

Such an obstruction situated partly on the carriageway would likely force oncoming vehicles travelling west past the site to either wait behind the parked vehicle or to attempt to avoid the parked vehicle by crossing either wholly or partially onto the east-bound section of the carriageway. Given the heavily-trafficked nature of this road, and the narrow width of each section of carriageway, such actions would likely cause congestion and increase the risk of drivers not paying due attention when approaching the zebra crossing. The introduction of congestion and vehicles negotiating a pathway past the obstruction caused by the parked vehicle(s) would likely place pedestrians using the zebra crossing in danger. The resulting confusion would also increase the risk of accidents between vehicles. The free flow of traffic in this location would be unacceptably compromised due to the need for vehicles to navigate around parked vehicles occupying part of the carriageway.

I have had regard to the survey submitted by the appellant. This survey relates to 2 days in January only, with 2 hours being surveyed on Friday 30 January 2026 and 4 hours being surveyed on Saturday 31 January 2026. This is a very limited survey period, considering the intended opening hours for the proposed hot food takeaway. As such, its findings are not persuasive.

In any event, at the site visit I observed a car pulling up and parking on the double-yellow lines outside of Green’s of Pangbourne, which is on the same stretch of road as [address] (one of the survey locations). This car remained parked, obstructing part of the carriageway, for several minutes. It cannot be said that the existing parking restrictions in Pangbourne act as a self-governing deterrent to parking, as a matter of fact. Interested parties have also mentioned that previous occupiers of the unit at the site have had deliveries on the footway / kerbside, which caused traffic to back-up and caused overtaking at the pedestrian crossing, which reinforces my findings above. The survey does not alter my findings above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on pedestrian safety, highway safety, and the free flow of traffic. It would conflict with the 2nd bullet point of Policy SP19 of the [site address] Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted 2025) (Local Plan) which provides that development that generates a transport impact will be required to improve and promote opportunities for active travel.

The site is located in a mixed-use and commercially-orientated area mainly consisting of ground-floor shops and upper-floor residential flats. The submitted Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) mentions that the nearest sensitive receptors are first-floor residential flats located directly above the commercial unit and to the rear, approximately 5–10 metres from the proposed extract outlet.

Representative background noise levels for a [address] commercial area have been adopted by the NIA. As no site-specific noise measurements have been taken, the degree to which they represent reality is unknown. In relation to the proposed kitchen extraction system, no plan has been provided showing the location of the sensitive noise receptors under consideration, which might provide assurance that all relevant receptors have been identified. The exact location of the nearest residential façade referred to in the NIA has not been specified.

Distance attenuation has been taken into account in calculating the attenuated level at receptors, but a generic ‘attenuated level at receptor’ figure has been provided, rather than specific figures for each of the relevant receptors. Given that distances between receptors vary in relation to the proposed extraction system, this introduces a significant level of uncertainty as to the accuracy of the 50 dB(A) figure quoted. Additionally, whilst mention has been made of residential flats at first-floor level, the NIA does not mention The Granary, a unit located directly adjacent to the site which has the appearance of being in residential use. A door to The Granary is present at ground-floor level, in close proximity to the location in which the proposed extraction system would emanate from the rear of [site address] (No 8).

Even taking the presented figures at face value, the predicted noise level would be approximately 5 dB(A) above the stated typical evening background level. This is of concern, considering that, generally-speaking, background sound levels exceeded by more than 5 dB may cause disturbance at noise-sensitive receptors. The lack of certainty with respect to both the baseline levels of noise and the likely noise impacts of the proposed development on specifically-identified nearby receptors, including the ground-floor of The Granary, means that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed noise mitigation measures would be effective. In other words, the claim in the NIA that the predicted noise impact from the proposed kitchen extraction system is classified as ‘[name], is not supported by data within the NIA.

The Planning Statement classifies odour risk from deep-frying operations near residential units as medium-high. A number of mitigation measures have been proposed, including (amongst others) baffle filters and activated carbon filtration. However, no data has been provided illustrating the likely effectiveness of such measures on nearby sensitive receptors. This is of concern, considering how close nearby residential properties are to the site.

Whilst the technical specifications of the proposed extraction system have been provided, and an operational and management plan has been submitted, few details have been provided to illustrate the likely level of fumes generated by the proposed development, either before or after mitigation. Accordingly, the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with respect to fumes has not been properly assessed. As the initial impact prior to migration has not been quantified, it is unclear whether the proposed mitigation measures would be effective in safeguarding their living conditions.

In the above-mentioned circumstances, where significant uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures, it would not be reasonable to impose pre-commencement condition(s) relating to noise, odour, and fumes, as suggested by the appellant. This is because it has not been shown that the proposed mitigation measures would be effective in safeguarding the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

I therefore find that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, odour, and fumes. It would conflict with Policy DM3 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development that would have an unacceptable impact on the health or wellbeing of existing communities will not be permitted, and with part a. of Policy DM5 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should ensure that there would be no harm to the amenity of occupants of neighbouring land and buildings, through an unacceptable increase in pollution, including from noise and odour.

An interested party has referred to the potential installation of CCTV, to discourage any inappropriate stopping or parking behaviour. The installation of CCTV does not form part of the proposed development as shown on the submitted plans. The application and appeal documents submitted by the appellant make no mention of CCTV. I must consider the scheme as submitted. This is not a matter which alters my findings on the main issues above.

The site is located within the Pangbourne Conservation Area (conservation area), the significance of which arises in part from its architectural and historic interest, including from its numerous listed buildings, some of which where constructed in the 18th and 19th centuries and which have retained an impressive array of original features which serve to maintain Pangbourne’s traditional village character.

I note that Pangbourne is already well-served by eateries, including a fish and chip shop, but there is little substantive evidence to indicate that the change of use proposed in this predominantly commercially-orientated area would unduly imbalance the existing character of the [address]. As the proposed external works to No 8 would be confined to the rear of the unit, the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area when considered as a whole. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

In line with paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I have given great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape1. As the proposed external works would be located to the rear of the unit, the proposed development would have a neutral effect on the landscape and in conserving it, would not conflict with the Framework in this respect. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. In reaching this finding, I have had regard to s85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended), which provides that, amongst other things, a relevant authority must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The support for the proposed development expressed by some interested parties is noted, but few details have been provided to quantify the positive economic impact which the proposed development would have over-and-above the existing use of the site. Limited weight is therefore given to the potential economic and social benefits of the proposed development to the local area. 1 Since 22 November 2023, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are known as National Landscapes.

As a matter of planning judgement, I find that the benefits of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with the policies of the development plan cited on the main issues above. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.