# 111-113 Cauldwell Hall Road, Ipswich - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Ipswich (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010023 - **Application reference:** IP/26/00124/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of first floor of a commercial building to 5 two-bed flats with retained ground-floor Class E (supermarket), no parking - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review 2022 DM21, DM22, Suffolk Guidance for Parking 2023 - **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety, parking - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, parking-stress, highway-safety, car-free-unsecured, l2-effective-use, drafting-slip, small-scheme ## Summary Five two-bed flats above a supermarket in an Ipswich local centre, with no parking. Dismissed on highway safety, even though the highway authority did not object and the council has a supply shortfall. The appellant's overnight parking survey missed the daytime restriction hours. Overspill parking on footways would obstruct pedestrians and access, conflicting with TR4. The inspector gave the benefits substantial weight (HO7, L2, TC2), but the S4 conclusion is worded the wrong way round. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶3). - **Late highway plan not accepted.** "the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme" (DL ¶2). - **Parking survey — DM21/DM22: FAIL.** The 00:30 survey was taken "when significantly more on-street parking is available as there are no parking restrictions on single yellow lines at those times" (DL ¶12). "there is no mechanism available to prevent future residents from owning private cars" (DL ¶13). "In the absence of any assessment of available spaces when the single yellow line parking restrictions apply, I cannot be certain that additional vehicles generated by the proposed development could be accommodated" (DL ¶15). - **Pedestrian safety — TR4: FAIL.** More footway parking "would exacerbate obstructions to pedestrians, particularly those with young children, pushchairs and disabilities" (DL ¶15). The development "would contravene Policy TR4 where it seeks to minimise the scope for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles and requires proposals to allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and ease of access by service and emergency vehicles" (DL ¶25). - **Highway authority's non-objection outweighed.** "in this case there is no means to achieve car free development and insufficient evidence that the proposal would not result in further inappropriate parking" (DL ¶18). - **Network impact — "TR3" [sic]: no severe impact.** "Whilst it would not have a severe adverse impact on the transport network in terms of Policy TR3" (DL ¶25). The severe residual cumulative impact test sits in TR6. ## Planning balance S4: benefits from HO7 (homes, no five-year supply), L2 (underutilised floorspace) and TC2 (centre vitality) given "substantial weight" (DL ¶¶23–24). TR4 harm "attracts considerable weight. Consequently, in this case, the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, and thus the appeal scheme would be contrary to Policy S4 of the Framework" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶26). The dismissal implies the inspector meant "would be substantially outweighed". ## What made the difference The parking evidence was taken at the wrong time of day: the survey showed spare capacity only because yellow-line restrictions lapse overnight. The inspector's own daytime observation of footway parking outside the site then carried the case. Without a legal mechanism to make the scheme car-free (e.g. a permit restriction), "car-free" was only a label. A daytime survey showing capacity, or a secured car-free obligation, would probably have won, given the substantial benefits and the highway authority's support. ## Transferable points - TR4 (minimising pedestrian/vehicle conflict; service and emergency access) is used as a freestanding reason for refusal separate from the "severe" network test (DL ¶25). - Parking stress surveys must cover the hours when on-street restrictions apply; a Lambeth-method overnight survey alone can be inadequate (DL ¶¶12, 15). - "Car-free" carries little weight without a mechanism to stop residents owning and parking cars (DL ¶¶13, 18). - An inspector can find highway safety harm despite no highway authority objection, based on site observation (DL ¶¶6–7, 18). - Substantial weight can go to HO7, L2(1)(b) and TC2 benefits together for a small mixed-use conversion (DL ¶¶23–24). - Drafting slip: DL ¶25 says the benefits "would not be substantially outweighed" but concludes the scheme is contrary to S4. The inspector also cites the "severe" test under TR3 rather than TR6. Substantial benefits vs "considerable" harm sits awkwardly with a "substantially outweighed" finding, so the decision is vulnerable to challenge on reasoning. ## Policy findings - **TR4: fail (considerable weight).** overspill parking onto footways; blocks safe access to flats, bin/bike stores, deliveries, service and emergency access; pedestrian/vehicle conflict (DL 15-16, 25) - **TR3: pass.** no severe adverse impact on the network "in terms of Policy TR3" (DL 25); severe-impact test more naturally TR6 - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 5 homes; council cannot show 5-yr supply, figure not stated (DL 23-24) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of underutilised floorspace (DL 23-24) - **TC2: benefit (substantial weight).** retained commercial space supports local centre vitality and viability (DL 23-24) - **S4(1): fail.** concluded contrary to S4, but DL 25 literally says benefits "would not be substantially outweighed" - inverted wording (DL 25) - **Ipswich DPD DM21, DM22: conflict.** parking standard (11 spaces) not met; car-free status not securable (DL 8, 13, 19) ## Key facts - 5 two-bed flats, zero parking; county standard would require 11 spaces (DL 8) - Highway authority did not object (sustainable location, parking survey) (DL 18) - Appellant parking stress survey at 00:30 (Lambeth method) outside single-yellow-line hours (8am-6pm Mon-Sat); showed 12-17 spaces free; no survey during restricted hours (DL 5, 11-12, 15) - Inspector observed cars on the footway outside the site and on Springland Close at the daytime visit (DL 6-7) - Station just over 800 m away; buses to town centre (DL 13) - Council accepts no 5-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 24) - Highway improvement plan submitted at appeal not considered - appeal not to evolve a scheme (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010023 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3262d784-d318-492b-8880-bcf3c9369c51 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010023.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.