Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 5 February 2013
by Michael R Moffoot DipTP MRTPI DipMgt MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 26 February 2013
Appeal Ref: APP/R3515/A/12/2186384
Malt House Events, Princes Street, Ipswich IP1 1SB
•
•
•
•
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 Essy Eslamian (Total Car Parks Ltd) against the decision of
Ipswich Borough Council.
The application Ref. IP/12/00650/FUL, dated 2 August 2012, was refused by notice
dated 16 October 2012.
The development proposed is a short stay public pay and display car park.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. The main issue in this case is whether the proposed development accords with
national and local planning policies regarding sustainable forms of travel.
Reasons
3. The existing private car park serves The Maltings entertainment venue which,
at the time of my site visit, did not appear to be operational. The site has
frontage and access to Commercial Road which forms part of the town’s
gyratory road system, and the proposal involves use of the land as a short stay
public car park. Although the proposal seeks permanent planning permission,
the appellant has indicated that a temporary, 12 month permission is now
sought.
4. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is a
presumption in favour of sustainable development, which includes actively
managing patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public
transport, walking and cycling. It states that “the transport system needs to
be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real
choice about how they travel”. These broad objectives are echoed in Policies
CS1, CS5 and DM17 of the adopted Ipswich Borough Council Core Strategy &
Policies Development Plan Document which, amongst other things, promote a
comprehensive approach to tackling climate change by reducing carbon
emissions, improving accessibility, minimising the need to travel and
encouraging access on foot, bicycle and public transport.
5. The Council advises that this part of the town benefits from a number of public
car parks, including the land adjacent to the appeal site, a multi-storey facility
at the nearby railway station and a surface car park at Portman Road. These
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/R3515/A/12/2186384
car parks are large, and at the time of my late morning site visit it was evident
that they had plenty of unused spaces available. I also understand there are a
number of car parks with temporary permission on the edge of the Central
Parking and Waterfront areas of the town, although I have not been provided
with full details of these facilities and did not therefore view them.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the town is well served by existing car parks
within or on the edge of the centre.
6. I acknowledge that car parking is an important component of an integrated
strategy to the provision of transport facilities in the town, together with
walking, cycling and public transport in the form of the bus and train.
However, I have seen no compelling evidence to show that the additional
parking spaces generated by the appeal proposal would be an essential part of
such a strategy given the existing levels of parking provision I have described
and the sustainable transport modes that currently serve the centre.
7. By increasing the number of parking spaces in the town, even for a temporary
period, the proposal would encourage use of the private car, and would
therefore be contrary to the well established national imperative to promote
sustainable modes of travel and in turn reduce reliance on the car, cut down
traffic congestion and improve environmental and air quality. As such, it would
conflict with the Framework and those development plan policies I have
referred to.
8. In coming to these findings I am mindful that the land in question has been
used for car parking, but it would appear to have been limited to serving The
Maltings and its use would therefore have been on a much reduced scale to
that now proposed.
Other Matters
9. The appellant refers to the need to “mitigate current and past losses”, but it is
not clear what these are and how the proposal would address the matter. It
may be the case that the development would bring about an improvement in
the appearance of the site, but this could be achieved by other means and such
benefits therefore carry only limited weight in favour of the proposal.
10. The appellant submits that the proposal would help to increase footfall in the
town centre during the present downturn in the economy, but as I have noted
there is no shortage of car parking space in or on the edge of the centre and
the area is well served by public transport and accessible on foot and bicycle. I
am not therefore persuaded that the proposal would make any meaningful
contribution to increasing activity levels in the centre.
Conclusion
11. I have found that the appeal proposal would be inconsistent with the objectives
contained in national and local planning policies regarding sustainable forms of
travel. I therefore conclude that the proposal is unacceptable and the appeal
should be dismissed.
Michael R Moffoot
Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2