Letter from Planning Inspector Dismissing McDonald's Appeal

The Planning Inspectorate

Our Ref:
APP/K36051A/9B/I013162/PB

Date: 21JUN 1999

Dear Sirs

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, SECTION 78 AND SCHEDULE 6 APPEAL BY McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS LTD
APPLICATION NO: 98/1517

1.The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has appointed me to determine this appeal against the failure of the Elmbridge Borough Council to determine, within the prescribed period, a planning application for alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian access at The Hinchley Wood Public House, Manor Road North, Hinchley Wood. I have considered the written representations, including those received after my site visit, together with all other material submitted to me. I inspected the site on 29 April 1999.

2. Although the local planning authority did not determine the planning application within the prescribed period, their appeal statement indicates that planning permission would not have. been granted for two reasons. As you know and as the objecting body RAM (Residents Against McDonald's) also knows, the first reason is fairly comprehensive with specific concerns and reference to planning policies. The second reason cites that inadequate information was provided about the proposal for the authority to consider

3. I am well aware of the -concerns expressed by local people, at the application and appeal stages, about the proposed use of the premises served by the access with Manor Road North as a restaurant and a take-away facility by your client company; concern is also expressed about the loss of a local public house. Having regard to the statement by RAM, individual objectors are probably aware by now that planning permission is not needed for the intended occupation as a 'Drive- To' restaurant because such a use and that of the public house are within Class A3 of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

4. I agree with the point on your client's behalf that die intended occupation of the Premises could commence as and when your client decides. Reprehensible as that might be perceived by some local people, the statutory provision provides for this. I am aware that representations have been made to the Secretary of State about this statutory order but this is not for me to comment upon. I am required to determine the appeal have regard to any relevant provisions of the development plan and any material considerations bearing in mind Section 54A of the Act." As described in paragraph 1 above, the appeal before me is solely about your client's development proposal to alter the access arrangement with Manor Road North.

5. From my consideration of the representations allied to my inspection of the appeal site and the surroundings, the main issue to resolve is whether the altered access would be satisfactory bearing in mind pedestrian safety in this part of Manor Road North and the vehicular use of the altered access stemming from the intended occupation by McDonald's Restaurants Ltd.

6. ATITUDES TO APPEAL PROPOSAL: I am mindful of the supportive views about the appeal proposal by officers of the local planning authority and the highway authority . However, I find considerable force in the stance of opposition to this alteration scheme taken by the Council and RAM and individual representors particularly in regard to their concern about pedestrians. I am very mindful of the strong criticisms that the proposed alterations at the access are primarily and substantially for the benefit of vehicular traffic using the facility but to the serious disadvantage of pedestrians.

7. The existing access arrangement is regarded as flawed or substandard or not to optimum standard by your client because the alignment, between the point of entry or exit with the carriageway on Manor Road North and the internal access road, is not straight. In addition, your client's view is that the access is not wide enough, there are two end-on parking bays within the operational space of the access. All serve as constraints to the free movement of vehicular traffic into and out of the access. The proposed alterations are therefore intended to remedy perceived deficiencies by widening the access to align with the internal access road and thence to the rear parking area. This proposal is perceived to significantly improve the free flow of traffic movement at the access.

8. On the other hand, the Council is concerned about the width increase proposed including the provision of wider kerb radii. It regards the present access arrangement to have the advantage of acting as a throttle so vehicle speeds at and within the access are necessarily low. The Council also points out that Manor Road North is a busy local distributor road with frequent congestion in front of the access because it is close to a signal controlled junction with the Kingston By-Pass (A309); there are resultant queues of traffic and there is on street parking. The Council points out that the corner site premises is flanked by a relatively well used footway and particularly by local school children.

9. The Council is mindful that the aim of the proposed changes is to allow two vehicles to pass without having to negotiate the pinch point by the bend just inside the access. But it perceives a vast and uncontrollable increase in the access use due to the intended fast food use of the premises served by the access. Because the level of traffic would be so high, the Council takes the view that any increase in width at the access would be detrimental to pedestrian use. It concludes that any significant change to the access with consequent advantage to the motorist, but to the disadvantage of pedestrians and others, should be resisted.

10. Local objectors to the appeal proposal, under an umbrella body called RAM or individually, express various concerns about the proposed alterations. RAM asserts that pedestrian safety would be compromised were the alterations to be undertaken, explaining that the majority of pedestrians who pass the appeal site during the day are from the most vulnerable sections of the community -senior citizens, school children and parents with young children. This objecting body perceives an emphasis by your client to better vehicle movement at the access whereas pedestrian safety appears to be a secondary consideration.

11. EXISTING ARRANGEMENT: The representations do not indicate whether the prevailing access arrangement has existed since the establishment of the public house premises or whether the chicane type configuration within the access is a later addition to control vehicle movements given the location within a shopping centre, also the closeness of the by-pass junction and the side roads virtually opposite that serve the railway station. The existing width of the crossover is about 6 metres which, in theory, should be wide enough to cater for slow moving two-way car traffic or indeed a car in one direction and a commercial vehicle in the other. The capability of the crossing to deal reasonably satisfactorily with the two-way car traffic was demonstrated on a number of occasions during my lengthy observation though there was also periodic congestion here.

12. As for any uncontrolled junction on a busy main road, there were occasions when drivers were not able to carry out a turning manoeuvre without delay and some difficulty because other vehicles wished to enter or were within the access operational area for other reasons. This was evident particularly when the intensity of vehicular traffic increased during the peak period; then there were queues tailing back along Manor Road North from the traffic signals. I observed on occasions that this queue extended back well beyond the access, also noting that the running phase for Manor Road North traffic did not allow this approach to clear because it permitted only a maximum of ten straight ahead movements by alert drivers. This restraint situation is in fact remarked upon by an individual representor who is a cyclist.

13. The two end-on parking spaces in front of the shop were almost continuously in use but I did not observe a propensity for drivers to reverse from them out on to the main road. Rather and as RAM explains, the tendency by drivers was to use the internal access road and no doubt the parking area beyond to turn and return in a forward direction to the access. So vehicle occupancy of this convenient parking facility does not seem to be a major contributor to potential congestion within the access except when there is a coincidental demand by incoming and outgoing cars; this situation is depicted by the swept path plans for large saloon cars. The same occupancy situation would make HGV movements nigh on impossible into the side access road without some manoeuvring; this again as depicted by the swept path plans submitted for my consideration.

14. Pedestrian movements across the approximate 6 metre wide access did not seem to pose untoward difficulties with the exercise of due care, perhaps because there was not a consistently intense movement of vehicles within the access; I observed that pedestrians gave way to vehicles. Negotiating this crossing during the peak period was difficult for pedestrians because the access was blocked at times by vehicles unable to be moved due mainly to congestion on the main road, the traffic queue situation for example. A noticeable feature is the prevailing straight alignment of the footway enabling desired crossing movements to be made without deviation.

15. FEATURES OF PROPOSAL: Details of the appeal proposal are given by Drawings No.1285.01B (scale 1:500, July 1998) and No. 1285.02A (scale 1:200, August 1998). The scheme seeks to provide a wider and straight crossing for vehicles into and out of the premises, between the north side carriageway of Manor Road North and the internal access road serving a rear parking area for about 76 cars.

16. Provision of the widened crossing entails demolition of part of the front boundary wall I the premises with the associated landscaping for incorporation as a paved part of the vehicle crossing. A southern relocation to the kerb line here, stated to be 4.3 metres, is proposed. In addition, the kerb line to the highway would be relocated inwards in order to provide a tapered exit (merging facility) for drivers turning left from the widened crossing towards the signal controlled junction of Manor Road North with the nearby Kingston By-Pass (A309) .Therefore parts of the existing south-side footway would be lost by incorporation into the vehicle crossing facility .But part of the landscaping feature, to a maximum depth of about 2 metres, would be incorporated as a "side on" part of the south side footway. The minimum width of this resultant footway is stated to be 2 metres. I assess the current width of the footway south of the existing crossing to be in the range of 4 to 3 metres.

17. An extension to the north-side footway is proposed by incorporating part of the crossing. An entrance kerb line with a generous radius is intended to accommodate the left turn inward movement from Manor Road North. The parking bays in front of the retail shop would be repositioned to become parallel with the front of the shop building. A "Give Way" control marking at the exit position with the road is also intended.

18. THE LEGAL AGREEMENT: A yellow coloured box marking or a keep clear carriageway marking is proposed. The agreement also intends the provision of a pedestrian crossing on Manor Road North; this is stated to be for the benefit of customers and for the local district centre. Also intended by means of the agreement is a traffic regulation order, control waiting and loading on Manor Road North, a limitation for the servicing of your client's premises so that this does not take place from 07.30 to 09.30 hours and from 16.30 to 18.30 hours on any day, and appropriate works to the circulation areas within the premises, reduce vehicle speeds. Contributions to the cost of the intended proposals on Manor Road North are indicated.

19. POLICY AND DESIGN STANDARDS: There is no specific reference in the cases to geometric design standards as adopted and applied by the authorities, planning and highway, for a district centre location such as this though various planning policies from the development plan and the emerging local plan are referred to by the Council. Some of these are not regarded as relevant to your client's appeal. I intend to consider these local policies after first considering national guidance about geometric standards and design concepts for junctions.

20. Brief reference is made in your case to national guidance in PPG1 drawing attention to paragraph 60 about local opposition to a development proposal and to paragraph 61 in situations where Councillors decide not to accept an Officer's recommendation. There is reference also to PPG13, drawing particular attention to paragraph 6.4 that access should be to a secondary road where this is feasible, instead of to a primary route, and to paragraph 6.6 with the guidance that the type of access provided should reflect the type of road involved as well as the volume and character of traffic likely to use the access and the road. I have regard to this general policy guidance bearing in mind that the access is within a district shopping centre close to a signal controlled junction with a primary distributor road.

21. Under 'Complementary Transport Measures', there is guidance in PPG13 about provision for pedestrians and traffic management which are very relevant to this appeal in my opinion, having regard to the stance by the Council and that of RAM with individual objectors concerned about the apparent preference for easing vehicle movements to the detriment of pedestrian movement. I have regard to the associated advice in " A Guide. to Better Practice" about pedestrian conditions and the companion guide to DB32 about the concept of junction design. Even though the access is not within a residential area but in the district shopping centre, the design principles in this national guidance nonetheless seem to be very apt bearing in mind the general need for speed restraint within the centre traversed by pedestrians of all ages. I am also very mindful of the national objective to reduce the number of traffic accidents and the general acknowledgement that accidents to pedestrians tend to occur at or near to junctions within an urban area.

22. Paragraph 4.12 of PPG13 advises that the impact of policies and development on pedestrian movement should always be considered; that fundamental approach cannot be ignored. Paragraph 4.13 advises authorities to include proposals in a Local Plan to make areas and developments safer and more attractive to pedestrians. One of the options referred to is pedestrian -friendly road crossings which avoid long detours and long waits. Paragraph 4.14 advises about complementary measures to reduce vehicle speeds. There is general guidance about traffic management measures in paragraph 4.20, to avoid congestion pressures for example, whilst paragraph 4.22 notes the usefulness of traffic management in improving the quality of local neighbourhoods, making the streets safer for children and adults. Measures to enhance the street environment and improve road safety should be considered for sensitive urban locations such as shopping streets and near schools.

23. This access is within a shopping street of the Hinchley Wood district centre. The representations of objection to the appeal proposal also draw attention to the proximity of a very large school and the use of Manor Road North for journeys to and from school on foot or by bus; I observed this to be so at the inspection. Paragraph 4.23 of PPG13 explains that physical features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowing can help to keep vehicle speeds down and improve driver behaviour.

24. FUTURE SITUATION: In my assessment, the geometric layout of the proposed crossing is equivalent to a wide bellmouth type opening enabling left inward movements to be undertaken without a pronounced or a suitable reduction in speed by drivers from Manor Road North. This particular type of movement is depicted in the companion guide to DB32 (at page 57) with an explanation: "Footway edge follows wide swept path of refuse vehicles. This leads to a tendency for vehicles and vehicle speeds to dominate the space". That in my judgement is a very apt description of the situation obtaining at the widened and realigned crossing bearing in mind also the tapering lane provision to help ease the merging manoeuvre for the left turn into Manor Road North on the critical approach to the traffic signals. The relevant diagram (at page 57) shows a width of5.5m for the 'side road', this being much less than the proposed minimum width for vehicles of 7m at the crossing.

25. This realigned facility is obviously designed with ease of vehicle flow as a prime criterion, given the stated aim to significantly improve the free flow of (vehicular) traffic. The proposal is also perceived to be advantageous because it would facilitate off-highway servicing by the sole supplier (Golden West Foods) to the premises with rigid or articulated vehicles which would otherwise have to park on the street. This I presume is meant to be Manor Road North where there are various locations, the station approach road for example, with multiple points of potential vehicle conflict. I recognise the inherent benefit of off- highway servicing particularly by HGVs with a possible duration of 1/2 to 1 hour.

26. By contrast to the perceived advantages for vehicular traffic, pedestrian movement across the realigned access would be much more difficult in my judgement due to the proposed configuration, leaving aside the important consideration of increased vehicular traffic flow. I consider this later noting here the general agreement that there would be an increase, compared to the public house occupation, though there are differences about the extent of this.

27. By reference to the design drawing (No. 1285.02A), the minimum crossing width for pedestrians of 7 metres would occur over only a very limited part. As an example and following the boundary wall alignment.. the resultant width for a pedestrian movement here would be in excess of 7.5 metres increasing to over 9 metres where the exit taper lane starts. A very significant additional disadvantage would be an effective footway width of barely 2 metres compared to the prevailing width in the order of 4 metres, raising very serious concerns in my mind whether the proposed width would be adequate for safe use by mothers with prams and young children. Given also the probable need to divert from a straight path desire line, to that section of new footway incorporated from the boundary feature, the pedestrian movements would be confined and complicated and congested. In my assessment, there would be insufficient space for satisfactory pedestrian movement or space to provide a pedestrian safety barrier on the south side were that to be necessary in the future.

28. Instead of providing a wide footway (paragraph 4.12 of PPGI3), that intended on the south side of the realigned crossing would in my judgement be a severe and a potentially dangerous constriction for pedestrian movement. Though a larger piece of footway is intended on the north side of the crossing, the useable part would probably be over a limited extent bearing in mind the footway situation on the south side together with the intended dedicated crossing facility for pedestrians. This facility might in itself give a false sense of security for pedestrians because unacceptably high vehicle speeds in the left turn inward movement are probable. Drivers in general might be more concerned to ensure that available gaps in the main traffic flow are used by them to their best advantage without giving sufficient thought to safe pedestrian movement at the crossing.

29. This altered crossing would require pedestrians to negotiate a much wider space intended to facilitate an easier movement for vehicles. The pedestrians' desired route would no longer be straight. It would also be equivalent to crossing an all-purpose two lane highway with a carriageway width of 7.3m (24ft). Contrary to the general guidance in PPG13 (at paragraph 4.13), this would not be a pedestrian friendly crossing. I am in no doubt that acceptance of the appeal proposal would make this location in Manor Road North less safe and less attractive to pedestrians, again this being so contrary to the general objective to do so. Space at the proposed access facility for the intended restaurant and take- away facility would not only be dominated by vehicles in my judgement, but the streetscene itself would be changed conspicuously solely for the advantage of vehicular traffic.

30. I am mindful of your explanation that technical concerns about the appeal proposal were not raised during the consultations with the authorities and in the. report to the planning committee, but I am at a loss to comprehend this in the light of the guidance in PPG13. Viewing the streetscene, there are very wide paved areas for pedestrians to meander at will on the north side of the access, but the severe space restriction contrast at the access in the proposed form could hardly be more pronounced in my opinion. The character in this part of the district centre would be materially harmed.

31. Adverse comments by the objectors about the re-arranged parking spaces in front of the shop are justified. Whilst the present arrangement is far from ideal, I note earlier that the current use does not normally create disruption to car movement at the access, but the inherent need to reverse in or out of the proposed spaces against the normal direction of movement, would be difficult to say the least; it might at times be very hazardous given the obstruction to visibility along the internal access road due to the adjacent building. This is not a very suitable re-arrangement. I realise that access for the servicing vehicles would be difficult, but I am also mindful of the expectation that alternative parking spaces could be ensured within the main parking area to the rear of the premises; this would overcome the difficulty for those limited occasions during the week when the premises need to be serviced.

32. VEHICLE FLOWS: There is nothing in the representations to clarify when the premises were last used as a public house or about the actual intensity of vehicle flow at the access generated by the former occupation. The rear car park is presently used by shoppers and commuters, a situation obtaining when the premises were occupied as a public house. Al the time of my inspection, there seemed to be about fifty cars in the rear parking area; cars were also parked along the access road at the side of the building. My observations of vehicle movements at the existing access cannot therefore attribute these to a public house occupation because the premises were closed.

33. Comparison of past and probable future vehicle flows using the access are therefore based upon available data gained from experience elsewhere. Your comparative evaluation on a floor area basis indicates that the public house occupation could generate some 30 arrivals in the Friday peak time or some 27 arrivals during a typical Saturday lunch peak trading time. On the basis of surveys at three of your client's restaurants, with a range of arrivals (63 to 70) in the Friday evening peak and a range (84 to 97) in the Saturday lunchtime peak, the predicted vehicle trips at the premises are 84 arrivals during the Friday evening peak and 116 arrivals at Saturday lunchtime. Each of these restaurants was formerly a public house.

34. Observations by RAM at your client's North Cheam restaurant reveals that some 1200 vehicles (mainly cars and vans) entered during the opening hours of 07.00 to 23.00, yet the site there is stated to be much smaller than at Hinchley Wood; it has less than half of the parking spaces but has a drive through facility .Given the additional observations by this objector about the higher flows on A309 compared to the A24, there is a consequent assertion that your predicted arrivals throughout the opening period (some 700 trips) is too low. Moreover the observed peak time arrivals of 131 at North Cheam is much higher than the prediction for Hinchley Wood. Bearing in mind also that the A24 is not as heavily trafficked as the Kingston By-Pass (A309), the restaurant at North Cheam would attract fewer customers already on the highway.

35. I note your rebuttal explanation that the North Cheam restaurant has the drive-through facility which, in association, with the different characteristics of the catchment area accounts for the higher vehicle flow there. But the claim by RAM that the A309 is more heavily trafficked is not queried nor an answer given about the comparative sizes. Bearing 'the size in mind with the expectation that some 60% to 70% of the restaurant customers would already be on the highway network, also that the premises are located in a prominent trading position by the busier A309, I find merit in the concerns by RAM about the future level of vehicle flow at the access being potentially much higher than your prediction; the vehicle flow would probably be higher .

36. The Council does not make a specific prediction about the future level of vehicle flow merely that it would be so high, in the context of pedestrian safety and in the planning policy context, the Council would have no control over the proposed Class A3 new occupant but nevertheless anticipates that this would cause a significant increase in demand for travel in the area particularly by car .There is an assertion by the Council that a significantly improved access for vehicles would further encourage such journeys thus undermining the important policy objective to reduce the need for travel.

37. I have considered the proposition of a causal link stemming from an access alteration designed primarily to facilitate the free movement of vehicle borne customers which would encourage a greater number of trips, either from the majority source attracted or diverted who are already on the local highway network or as an extra to the vehicle trip generation in direct consequence of the restaurant provision. I think it probable that the altered access could encourage more vehicle trips and on the same common sense approach, a do nothing situation might act as a deterrent for both trip sources. But the scale in terms of vehicle numbers cannot be gauged in my opinion from the available data and without before and after case studies.

38. More certain is the inevitable increased vehicle use of the access with Manor Road North. However, the size of the actual increase at times of peak demand and throughout the proposed opening hours is not capable of reasonably accurate determination bearing in mind: (a) that the parking area is used by shoppers which seems likely to continue and (b), by commuters which might not continue, each of which will be subject to demand fluctuations. Car park surveys do not entirely assist except to indicate that the public house occupation created ~ parking demand seemingly at least twice and often three times that for the other trips. Nevertheless on the predicted basis of 30 arrivals for -the public house occupation during the Friday evening peak as against a minimum of 84 arrivals for the restaurant occupation, the change in the intensity of vehicle use at the access would be quite noticeable and significant in my judgement. Moreover, this would add seriously to the extra difficulties for pedestrians to negotiate already caused by. the proposed layout.

39. There will inevitably be occasions during the periods of traffic queuing and congestion on Manor Road North when the extra vehicular traffic seeking to turn right into or right out , of the access serving the restaurant would add, probably materially, to the adverse situation. That however is primarily in consequence of the quite permissible intention to use the premises by your client, as provided by the Use Classes Order. I conclude earlier that the application/appeal proposal is intended primarily to assist vehicle movement within the access. It would not necessarily help to ameliorate extra congestion and delays in Manor Road North for the other road users in my assessment.

40. While a carriageway box marking by the access would help to promote easier movements for restaurant bound traffic from the direction of the by-pass, and generally with benefit to the following northbound flow along this part of Manor Road North, there could be an adverse knock-on effect for traffic journeying towards the by-pass junction. I comment earlier that the running phase at the peak period for Manor Road North does not clear the traffic demand through the traffic signals with consequent residual queues. In my opinion, the suggested box marking could also assist the left turn exit movement at the tapered access. Overall I conclude that there would probably be more disadvantages for the queuing traffic on Manor Road North waiting to reach the A309 , and to drivers trying to emerge towards the A309 from. the station exit road, thus adding to their frustration and delay. Therefore I am not convinced that a box marking, as an associated traffic management measure to the appeal scheme, is necessary or even desirable for the public generally.

41. Other traffic management proposals by means of the agreement, for a pedestrian crossing within Manor Road North or traffic regulation order to preclude waiting and loading on this highway by and in the vicinity of the altered access, do not in my opinion bear directly upon this development proposal. Having regard to the general guidance in Circular 1197 about planning obligations, I do not regard these items of the completed undertaking to relate reasonably to the access scheme under consideration.

42. I of course realise that the absence of the agreement could result in servicing of the premises from the public highway during times of peak traffic flow, however undesirable this would be. However this potential problem stems primarily from the intended occupation of the premises without the need for planning permission. More significantly, I am not entirely convinced that such on-highway servicing is essential were the two parking bays to be relocated as seems to be possible. Alternatively, it is not inconceivable that sensible arrangements could be made to preclude the use of these bays by agreement if necessary and/or with cone prevention, for the limited number of occasions when the premises are serviced. In any event, there can be no guarantee that a restrictive waiting and loading TRO would be acceptable to the authorities given the due process for this and the likelihood of local objections.

43. PLANNING POLICY: A number of policies from the Elmbridge Borough LP are identified by the Council though I agree with your assessment that these are not relevant to the appeal proposal save for Policy GS 1. This policy seeks to meet the needs of the Borough's population by permitting development where it can be accommodated without detriment to the environment and amenities of the residents. No doubt this district centre of Hinchley Wood is regarded by the residents as an amenity with the shops and so on. I conclude earlier that the widened crossing, as wide as Manor Road North itself in parts, would have a damaging effect on the streetscene in addition to the serious adverse impact for pedestrians in this part of the centre.

44. This appeal proposal is not therefore in accord with the adopted policy GS1. I also conclude that it is not in accord with criteria (ii) and (iii) of draft policy MOV1, treated as a material consideration. In the absence of any strong material considerations that might otherwise swing the balance towards an acceptance of this proposed development, but given the preceding conclusions about the unsuitability of the proposed scheme, my overall conclusion is that the development plan provision has to be sustained. The appeal proposal would cause material harm to interests of acknowledged importance. I therefore intend to dismiss the appeal.

45. In the light of current national guidance about standards of footway provision with suitable deterrents in design to control vehicle speeds and to encourage good behaviour by drivers, I do not agree with the proposition that the existing access is out-of-date and should be altered irrespective of the Class A3 occupant at the premises. It might be thought with good reason, that the chicane type of arrangement within the existing access, itself slightly offset from the inward approach road to Hinchley Wood station, is quite a good example in practice of the design aims nowadays. Given the general guidance in paragraph 6.6 of PPG13, I conclude that this enlarged access proposal does not properly reflect the important shopping function for local residents though it would probably cater advantageously for the intended type of occupation at the premises. 46. In my considered opinion the Council, with sound planning justification, was quite correct to resist this appeal proposal. I have considered all other matters raised but none are of sufficient weight to bear upon my conclusions or influence my decision. For the above reasons, and in exercise of the powers transferred to me, I hereby dismiss this appeal.

Yours faithfully

T M MILLINGTON CEng MICE DipTE

Inspector