Page 268 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

Wealden House, Lewes Road, Ashurst Wood, East Grinstead, RH19 3TB

3.17 It is widely accepted that residents tend to park as close as possible to their homes and this is
acknowledged by the available methodologies for ‘parking stress’ surveys of residential neighbourhoods,
which consider that 200 metres is as far as most residents will walk to or from their vehicles on a regular
basis. It is also commonly acknowledged that residents are deterred from using a parking space that is
physically segregated, for example by a busy road.
3.18 In this case there will be few opportunities for residents to park outside the development that meet the
criteria described above. Windmill Lane is a narrow, unmade road with few places to park, forms part of
a public footpath (but has no footways), with no lighting and is on the opposite side of the A22.
3.19 Wellfield has a tarmac surface and two footways, but no lighting. It is flanked by frontage development
(housing) with accessways; there is some evidence of on-street and (partially) on-footway parking, most
likely by Wellfields residents. Realistically, this is the only place residents of the appeal scheme might
contemplate alternative parking and it would be inappropriate on grounds of both amenity and road
safety, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. Moreover, according to the WSCC Parking Demand
Calculator, it is unlikely to occur.
3.20 Nevertheless, if it did, the appropriate response in accordance with Policy ASW 21 would again be to
implement and enforce parking restrictions. The provision of additional parking within the development
is certainly not guaranteed to prevent overspill parking; it is just as likely that the available on-site
parking (however many spaces are provided) will be filled and then pressure will arise for parking
elsewhere in any event – unless it is curtailed by disincentives such as waiting restrictions (yellow lines).
Much like road space, the provision of more parking is a self-defeating aim and indeed makes a negative
contribution to wider sustainable travel objectives by encouraging more vehicle trips.

3.21 Sub-paragraph (b) of Policy ASW 21 states that reductions in parking provision will be resisted unless it
can be demonstrated that the proposed overall provision is adequate. It relates to proposals that reduce
parking relative to the quantity of development, for example where an additional dwelling is to be
provided at the cost of parking spaces. In this appeal, the existing commercial use is to be demolished
and replaced by an entirely different use, i.e. residential dwellings. It is therefore irrelevant to compare
the respective parking provisions except insofar as they affect the estimation of traffic impacts.

3.22 Nevertheless, in the interests of clarity, the site presently accommodates 64 parking spaces associated
with the existing office use, which is three fewer than the appeal scheme. Taken literally, therefore, the
appeal scheme satisfies this policy.

Appeal Statement: Parking – December 2019
Ashgrove Homes 8
1911051/wheast
Bates No 000267