Appeal 6008321

The appeal is dismissed.

For reasons of precision, I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice. This accurately describes the development proposed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal site comprises a detached, single storey storage unit. The site is accessed from [address], close to the junction with [address], and is situated within the [site address] District Centre. [address] is characterised by a mix of uses including commercial units, some flats and a health centre. [address] is however predominately characterised by residential properties. There is also a school and nursery situated close to the appeal site, along [address].

There are temporary parking bays on both sides of the road close to the appeal site which serve the shopping frontage, and these allow a maximum stay of four hours. When these bays are occupied, the usable width of the carriageway is substantially reduced. There are also parking restrictions outside the nearby school and controlled parking zones further south along [address] and in surrounding roads. In combination, these features require drivers to take care when travelling along [address] and accessing and egressing the junction with [address]. Additionally, the need for caution would be heighted at school and nursery drop off and collection times due to an increased number of vehicles and pedestrians, including young children, travelling in the area.

During my early afternoon site visit, there was evidence of moderate parking stress in the area, with a number of parking spaces available. Although this represents a snapshot in time, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative. Additionally, it is likely that there would additional vehicles parking in the area during school and nursery drop off and collection times.

The appeal property is currently vacant and unused, however its most recent use was for storage (use class B8). The proposed scheme would include a car parts retail area, with a large portion of the building used as a light vehicle servicing garage. Based on the plans before me, the scheme would provide one parking bay, which is also the servicing bay. Only minor operations such as tyre changes, battery replacements and oil changes would be offered by the garage.

Nonetheless, the light vehicle servicing element of the scheme would inevitably result in an increased number of vehicle movements to and from the site throughout the day as patrons bring and leave their cars to be serviced or repaired. As a result, there would be an increase in vehicle manoeuvres in and out of the site and given the constrained nature of the site, it is possible that cars may have to reverse out on to the highway from the site. Also, given the lack of off-street parking, it is likely that cars would park outside the site awaiting repair.

Due to the existing constraints of the road, the above factors could result in the obstruction of pedestrian routes or conflict with passing traffic and pedestrians, thereby resulting in harm to highway and pedestrian safety. The risks would also be exacerbated during school and nursery drop off and collection times when parents/carers and young children would be regularly crossing the road and walking along the footpath to access the school and nursery.

The appellant sets out that they are willing to accept planning conditions to regulate the operations of the site. They have not put forward any specific wording for me to consider, but suggest controls could include servicing activity, management of customer arrivals, restrictions on external vehicle waiting and restrictions on external activity. The application supporting statement also sets out how a vehicle management plan would ensure a booking system to prevent queuing and clear signage directing customers to parking spaces.

However, there is no management plan before me and in any case, it is not clear how operators of the garage would prevent vehicles turning up without a booking or turning up early for a booked slot. Furthermore, if there was no space to park on the site, it is unclear where vehicles would be sent to wait. In any case, trying to control the use of the public highway would not be enforceable. [name] acknowledge that only light mechanical works would be offered, this would still result in increased vehicle movements, as set out above. I am therefore not satisfied that the suggested controls would be appropriate or would adequately mitigate the harm to highway and pedestrian safety.

I accept that the previous use of the site may generate some sporadic vehicle movements, such as collections and deliveries. However, it is reasonable to presume that a storage use would not generate the need to carry out work to vehicles or result in cars awaiting repair to park on the street, possibly multiple times a day.

I acknowledge that that the proposed use falls within use class E and is primarily retail-led, whereas previous schemes and dismissed appeals1 related to a car repair use, falling within use class B2. I also note that no vehicle repairs would occur on the road. Nonetheless, the scheme includes a light vehicle servicing garage. For the reasons set out above, this would result in an increased number of vehicle movements, manoeuvres in and out of the site and vehicles waiting outside the site.

The proposed retail unit and vehicle servicing garage would only be open from 9am to 6pm Monday to Saturday. However, this would not sufficiently mitigate the harm identified. In any case, it would be open during normal school drop off and pick up times, when the roads surrounding the site are likely to be subject to increased levels of traffic and parking.

The appellant contends that the Council’s position is not substantiated by evidence and is instead speculative. However, for the reasons outlined above, these are reasonable assumptions to make. To the contrary, the appellant has provided little empirical evidence in support of their position.

To conclude, the scheme would result in unacceptable harm to highway and pedestrian safety. It would therefore be contrary to Policies DMT1 and DMT2 of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan and Policies T3, T4 and T6 of the London Plan. Collectively, amongst other matters, these polices seek to reduce the dominance of vehicles on the street, promote sustainable means of transport and ensure highway safety.

The scheme may not harm neighbouring living conditions and would ensure proper waste management practices. Measures would also be put in place to prevent fumes from operations, and the scheme may comply with various other planning policy requirements. However, these are considered neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The scheme would make effective use of a vacant unit in an accessible location. There would be some economic benefits associated with the scheme such as promoting the vitality and viability of the district centre, employment opportunities, local spending in the area and the regeneration of the area. The use would also serve the local community, and the scheme may enhance the appearance of the site. Whilst these are important benefits, given the small scale of the scheme, I afford them limited weight in favour of the appeal.

Overall, the benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the harm in respect of highway and pedestrian safety and its subsequent conflict with policy, to which I afford significant weight. 1 19/00493/FUL, 21/01034/FULL, APP/Z5060/C/19/3236143 & APP/Z5060/W/21/3281879

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.