Appeal Decision Hearing held on 29 April 2014 Site visit made on 29 April 2014 by Ron Boyd BSc (Hons) MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 May 2014 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/A/14/2212949 Former Good Companions Pub, Limpsfield Road, Warlingham CR6 9AW The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Andre van der Westhuizen against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. The application Ref 13/00957/P, dated 22 March 3013, was refused by notice dated 25 October 2013. The development proposed is redevelopment of former public house comprising the erection of a single-storey building for use within Class A1(retail); provision of associated car parking; closure of existing site access from Tithepit Shaw Lane; and provision of new vehicular access onto Limpsfield Road. Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal. Main issue 2. I consider this to be the effect the proposed development would have on highway safety having regard to traffic arising from the development and the siting of the proposed new access on to Limpsfield Road. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises an area of some 0.5 hectares on the north-west corner of the junction between the B269 Limpsfield Road, a London Distributor Road subject to a 30 mph speed limit, and Tithepit Shaw Lane. The site is within the London Borough of Croydon immediately north of its boundary with Tandridge, Surrey. It is in a broadly figure-of-eight shape with a south-eastern area having frontage on to both roads, and a north-western area bounded by the back gardens of dwellings on the north side of Tithepit Shaw Lane and Princes Avenue. The site is vacant but was previously occupied by The Good Companions public house. 4. The site is in a Primary Shopping Area within a Local Centre. The west side of Limpsfield Road to the north has a ground floor retail frontage with residential accommodation above. The east side has a greater variety of commercial units occupying larger buildings, including a Co-operative supermarket. There are service roads along both sides of Limpsfield Road. That on the west side runs between its access to Limpsfield Road, immediately north of the appeal site, northwards to access on to Hamsey Way. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
5. The proposal is to provide a Lidl foodstore in the south-eastern part of the site with a car park for 70 cars in the north western area. The existing vehicular access into the site from Tithepit Shaw Lane would be permanently closed as would a secondary access on to the southern end of the service road. The latter is currently gated and locked, its use having been discontinued at some time in the past. 6. A new access to serve the proposed foodstore would be provided on to Limpsfield Road between the service road access on to Limpsfield Road to the north and a bus lay-by to the south. The splay radii of the foodstore access would be tangential to those of both the service road splay and the bus lay-by. This proximity between the three limits the alignment of the splays to the proposed access such that the swept path analysis for delivery vehicles submitted by the appellant (Drawing No. 4183.007) shows that such vehicles would need to utilise the whole width of Limpsfield Road on exiting, and the whole width of the 7m wide two-way access on entering. I consider this to be a weakness in a new development. 7. The Council refused the application on the sole ground of traffic safety contrary to officer advice. The Members concern was primarily with the potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflict arising from the proposed new access. The officer s report advised that the service road would become egress only to Limpsfield Road; that the principle of the new access was acceptable; that some concern had been noted in respect of the delivery vehicle swept path requirements; and that there were no safety or efficiency reasons to resist the access proposals. The Stage 1 Road Safety Audit submitted with the application was referred to. Also that additional information regarding pedestrian and vehicular visibility while the bus stop is occupied had been submitted. The proposed access was confirmed as acceptable. 8. The Council is the Highway Authority within the Borough. The adjoining Highway Authority to the south is Surrey County Council. The County Council was consulted and advised concern about potential safety issues that could arise from the proposed development in respect of the Limpsfield Road/Tithepit Shaw Road junction and the proximity of the primary and secondary schools situated in Tithepit Shaw Lane. Copy correspondence between the appellant s transport consultant and the County Council has been submitted confirming the County Council s acceptance that the junction, which lies within County jurisdiction, would continue to operate within capacity. The County Council did not comment on the proposed new access which is within Croydon. 9. No written evidence of internal consultation with the Council s own Highway Officer in respect of the proposed new access has been provided and none was available at the Hearing, the Council advising that consultation had been verbal. Whilst the appellant s Hearing Statement and Response to the Council s Hearing Statement refer to opinions expressed by the Council s Highway Officer no written substantiation of the Officer s opinions has been provided. Following submission of the appeal the Council appointed transport consultants to support its case. 10. Introducing the proposed access and the traffic that would use it would increase the number of potentially conflicting traffic movements in this part of Limpsfield Road. At present conflicts occur between traffic on Limpsfield Road, and that leaving, or right turning into the Co-operative supermarket car park, car wash and garage opposite, as well as the adjacent service road and buses www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
pulling out of the bus lay-by. To these would be added, according to the appellant s Traffic Assessment, peak flows leaving or right turning into the proposed foodstore access of up to 64 (weekdays 1700-1800 hours) and 105 (Saturday 1300-1400 hours) vehicles per hour. No compelling evidence has been submitted to contradict the appellant s assessment of likely traffic flows. 11. As well as the additional conflicting manoeuvres there would be the potential for confusion between drivers exiting the proposed foodstore access and those using the other accesses close by, particularly in respect those turning right out of the service road. In addition drivers leaving the foodstore access may be misled into pulling out in front of vehicles approaching from the south, that were signalling left to enter the service road, in the mistaken belief that their signalling indicated an intention to enter the foodstore. 12. This could be overcome by making the service road one-way southwards, with egress only at the southern end, as the officer s report and the appellant s Transport Assessment describe as being proposed. However, the appellant s submission to the Hearing made it clear that he considered such a measure, whilst providing additional safety and operational benefits to the local highway network, would not be necessary for the development to proceed. 13. At present, from observation, the service road is used by both northbound and southbound traffic in the ratio of approximately two to one respectively. Traffic approaching from the south would naturally enter from the south and leave at Hamsey Way. Precluding entry at the southern end would mean a very tight U turn for this northbound traffic for it to enter from the north, requiring cars or light vans to use the full width of the northbound carriageway of Limpsfield Road to carry out the manoeuvre. There would be the real possibility of it not being accomplished in a single operation. Failure to do so would not necessarily be anticipated by any drivers following from Limpsfield Road thus introducing further potential for conflict and obstruction of Limpsfield Road. I note the appellant s suggestion that 7.5 ton panel delivery vans would be able to accomplish the manoeuvre via the service road on the east side of Limpsfield Road. Notwithstanding the benefit of removing the possibility of conflict between opposing vehicles within the two-way service road as well as reducing conflicting manoeuvres at the southern end of the access road, I consider the proposal for a southbound one-way system to be contrived and would largely, in effect, replace one potential conflict situation with another. 14. However, were I to have considered the proposed development acceptable subject to imposition of the one-way system the necessary traffic regulation order, and the repositioning of the disabled parking bay and kerb realignment to ensure a no-parking length at the northern end of the service road, could have been the subject of a negatively worded planning condition. 15. There would also be a new source of potential conflict between pedestrians, particularly school children, on the western footway to Limpsfield Road and vehicles using the proposed access. From observation there is a significant flow of pedestrian traffic when the schools empty in the afternoon comprising parents, some accompanied by pre school children, going to collect, and then returning with, their primary school children. This is followed by a stream of older, unescorted, children either going home or visiting the shopping parade for snacks before returning to the bus stop. Whilst there is some supervision of the children at the bus stop itself their unsupervised crossing of the access would introduce an additional risk into the present situation. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
16. No predicted traffic flows for the foodstore access at school finishing time have been submitted. I note in submitted copy correspondence that the County Council s Transport Development Manager East makes the point that it is likely that parents may use the foodstore to park and shop as part of their school run and that school time can be a peak for discount shopping. This would exacerbate the potential for conflict between vehicles using the access and unsupervised children on the footway. I note the appellant s consideration of actively inviting parents to use the car park in connection with child collection. I accept that the existing Tithepit Shaw Lane access would be closed but I consider there is no likelihood that this could be considered suitable to accommodate flows of the order of those expected to visit the foodstore such that its demise could be a justification for the proposed new access. 17. In respect of the adjoining bus lay-by I consider the visibility for vehicles leaving the foodstore access with a bus in the lay-by would be acceptable, particularly with the suggested amendment to the lay-by which would better enable buses to park well clear of the carriageway. As to conflict between buses leaving the lay-by and customer vehicles exiting the foodstore access I consider this to be a situation where the experience of professional bus drivers familiar with the circumstances of their route would be likely to effect safe operation. Buses parked in the lay-by would however restrict the sightline of pedestrians travelling northwards on the footway and looking over their shoulder for left turning traffic before embarking on crossing the access. 18. I appreciate that in urban areas drivers frequently encounter situations such as accesses close together with limited space or adjoining a bus stop, and that such situations can, in practice, often be operated acceptably. However, the introduction of such features into a new development would, to my mind, require considerable justification. I consider the accumulation of additional risks to highway and pedestrian safety that would arise from this proposal, in view of the volume of traffic likely to use the proposed access; the volume of unsupervised schoolchildren having to cross the access when the schools in Tithepit Shaw Lane empty; and the potential for vehicular conflict arising from inadequate access/egress provision for large service vehicles and from the possibility of confusion and misunderstanding between users of the new access and those of the adjacent service road and other accesses; would be unacceptable. It would not be outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development in terms of its otherwise sustainable location, opportunity for employment, and increased retail competition and customer choice. 19. In the light of the above I conclude that the proposed development would adversely affect safety on the adjoining transport network contrary to Policy 6.3 (A) of the London Plan and Saved Policies T2 and UD12 (ii) of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2006 all of which are consistent with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework that developments should be designed to create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and pedestrians. I have taken into account all the other matters raised in the evidence, but have found nothing sufficient to outweigh my conclusions on the main issue which have led to my decision on this appeal. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should fail. R.T.Boyd Inspector www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Stephen Giles BEng(Hons), IEng, FIHE, MICE, MCIHT, CMILT Mr Rhodri Price Lewis QC Mr Chris Young-Wootton Director Gateway TSP Barrister Property Director Lidl UK GmbH FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Mr John Asiamah BSc MA, MRTPI Senior planning officer Ms Melissa Clarke Corporate solicitor Mr Mike Bedwell CEng, MICE, FIHT Director Waterman Transport & Development Ltd Cllr Tim Pollard Ward Member and Deputy Leader Cllr Lynne Hale Ward Member C Cllr David Hodge County Council Member for Warlingham Division and Leader Surrey County Council INTERESTED PERSONS: Cllr David Cooley Mr Lee Groves Mr Paul Redington Mr Ray Harper Ms Gill Pearson Mr Mervyn Fowler Mr Alan Crawley Ms Monica Cooper Tandridge District Councillor & Warlingham Parish Councillor Local residents DOCUMENTS 1 Notification of Hearing dated 9 April submitted by the Council 2 Statement of Common Ground submitted by the appellant 3 Plan No. 4183.007 submitted by the appellant 4 Plans Nos. 12/1108/SK01 Rev B and SK02 Rev A - submitted by the appellant www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5