Dr Allan J Burns
Allan J Burns 博士

APPEAL BY MRS J HOGG
霍格夫人的上诉

PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE
拟议用途变更

TO 到

AT

GUILD HOUSE, 7, ROOKWOOD ROAD, WEST WITTERING
Qualifications and Experience
资格和经验

My name is Dr. Allan James Burns.
我是艾伦-詹姆斯-伯恩斯博士。

My qualifications are:- 我的资历如下：-

B.Sc. Hons (Civil Engineering - University of Wales)
荣誉理学士（土木工程-威尔士大学）

M.Sc. (Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering University of Southampton)
理学硕士（南安普顿大学交通规划与交通工程学）

Ph.D (University of Southampton - thesis subject "Transport and Related Characteristics of the Residents of Private Category II Sheltered Housing for the Elderly")
博士（南安普顿大学--论文题目："私立二类老年庇护房住户的交通及相关特征"）。

Chartered Engineer 特许工程师

Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers
土木工程师学会会员

Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation
公路与运输学会会员

My experience can be summarised as flows:-
我的经验可以概括为：-

Fifteen years (1970 to 1985) in the Transportation Section of the County Surveyor's Department of Hampshire County Council, the last 11 years as team leader responsible for the transport input to all local plans throughout Hampshire. Evidence was presented at a number of local plan inquiries, and advice and evidence given on planning appeals.
在汉普郡郡议会郡测量部交通科工作 15 年（1970 年至 1985 年），最后 11 年担任组长，负责为汉普郡所有地方规划提供交通方面的意见。曾在多次地方规划调查中提供证据，并就规划上诉提供建议和证据。

From 1985 to present day, independent traffic and transportation consultan working on a wide variety of development proposals, including housing, sheltered housing, employment uses, leisure facilities, shopping, public houses, mineral extraction and car boot sales.
1985 年至今，担任独立的交通和运输顾问，负责各种开发提案，包括住房、保障性住房、就业用途、休闲设施、购物、公共房屋、矿产开采和汽车后备箱销售。

Since 1985 - visiting lecturer at Southampton University on aspects of Transportation at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
1985 年起，在南安普顿大学担任客座讲师，讲授本科生和研究生课程中有关运输的内容。
HIGHWAYS EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
代表上诉人的公路证据

1.1 The site is located with a short row of shops and similar business uses in the centre of West Wittering. This is a small village centre located on Rookwood Road, West Wittering.
1.1 遗址与西威特灵中心的一排商店和类似的商业设施相邻。这是一个小村庄中心，位于西威特灵的 Rookwood 路。

1.2 Rookwood Road is designated as the B2179 road. West Wittering is located some to the south-west of Chichester. It is linked to Chichester by the A286, which becomes the B2179 some to the north-east of West Wittering. The B2179, along with the B2198, forms a loop off the end the A286, with the B2198 serving East Wittering. Therefore, Rookood Road's main function is to serve West Wittering and the nearby coastal area.
1.2 卢克伍德路被指定为 B2179 公路。西威特灵位于奇切斯特西南约 处。它通过 A286 公路与奇切斯特相连，A286 公路在西威特灵东北约 处变为 B2179 公路。B2179 与 B2198 在 A286 的末端形成一个环路，B2198 则服务于东威特灵。因此，鲁库德路的主要功能是为西威特灵和附近的沿海地区提供服务。

1.3 Guild House, which was previously known as the "Old Post Office" is currently in mixed use. It is, in part, residential, although the main frontage has a retail use. It has, in the past, been used for the village post office, as indicated above and more recently as a gallery.
1.3 Guild House 的前身是 "老邮局"，目前为混合用途。虽然主要临街面是零售店，但其中一部分是住宅。如上文所述，它过去曾用作村邮局，最近则用作画廊。

1.4 The proposal is to change the use of the retail part of the property to a licensed coffee shop.
1.4 提议将该物业零售部分的用途改为特许咖啡店。

1.5 The proposal was refused planning consent for one reason only. This reasons stated that:-
1.5 该建议未获规划许可的原因只有一个。理由如下

"The proposal does not provide an adequate number of parking spaces for the A3 use proposed, which would lead to parking on the highway, detrimental to highway safety. Furthermore, there is insufficient space for delivery vehicles to manoeuvre on the site. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policy TR6 of the Chichester District local Plan, First Review 1999, policies DEV4 and NE13 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 and policy Inf 2 of the Core Strategy Submission."
"该提案没有为拟议的 A3 用途提供足够数量的停车位，这将导致在公路上停车，不利于公路安全。此外，场地内也没有足够的空间供送货车辆通行。因此，该提案违反了《奇切斯特地区地方规划》（1999 年第一次审查）中的 TR6 政策、《西萨塞克斯结构规划》（2001-2016 年）中的 DEV4 和 NE13 政策以及《核心战略提案》中的 Inf 2 政策。

1.6 My evidence will address this reason for refusal. The appellant, Mrs J Hogg, also wishes to submit a brief statement, dealing with other non-technical issues. A copy of this is attached as Appendix I to this appeal statement.
1.6 我的证据将针对这一拒绝理由。上诉人 J.Hogg 女士还希望提交一份简短的陈述，涉及其他非技术性问题。其副本作为附录 I 附于本上诉书之后。

2.1 Guidance on the provision of car parking at developments has evolved ove recent years. In 1994, a new version of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 "Transport" (Department of the Environment - 1994) was published by Central Government, which introduced the concept of limiting vehicle movements by constraining car parking provision. It promoted the use of maximum, as opposed to minimum, car parking standards, implying that full provision to meet the maximum likely demand for spaces would no longer be appropriate.
2.1 近年来，关于在开发项目中提供停车场的指导意见不断演变。1994 年，中央政府发布了新版的《规划政策指导说明 13--交通》（环境部--1994 年），其中引入了通过限制停车场的提供来限制车辆通行的概念。它提倡使用最高而不是最低的停车位标准，这意味着为满足最大可能的停车位需求而提供全部停车位已不再合适。

2.2 This 1994 guidance has subsequently been updated and, indeed, strengthened. The latest guidance (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions - 2001) not only reflects the desire to discourage car usage, but also a need to make the best use of urban land, so as to avoid the need to develop rural land. The advice given is summarised below.
2.2 1994 年的指导意见后来得到了更新和加强。最新的指导意见（交通、地方政府和地区部--2001 年）不仅反映了不鼓励使用汽车的愿望，而且还反映了充分利用城市土地的需要，以避免开发农村土地。现将有关建议概述如下。

PPG 13 "Transport" (March 2001)
第 13 号指导原则 "交通"（2001 年 3 月）

2.3 Paragraph 6 of PPG 13 advises local authorities that they should:-
2.3 《指导原则》第 13 条第 6 款建议地方当局：-

"use parking policies, alongside other planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys"
"利用停车政策以及其他规划和交通措施，促进可持续交通选择，减少工作和其他出行对汽车的依赖"

The provision of additional parking spaces at any development, however, large or small, is unlikely to promote sustainable transport choices.
在任何开发项目中提供额外的停车位，无论规模大小，都不可能促进可持续交通的选择。

2.4 PPG 13 promotes the optimum use of well-located sites. In paragraph 21 it starts by advising that:-
2.4 第 13 号指导原则提倡充分利用位置优越的地块。第 21 段开宗明义地指出

"local authorities should seek to make maximum use of the most accessible sites, such as those in town centres and others which are, or will be, close to major transport interchanges. These opportunities may be scarce. They should be pro-active in promoting intensive development in these areas and on such sites."
"地方当局应设法最大限度地利用交通最便利的地点，如城镇中心的地点和其他靠近或将靠近主要交通枢纽的地点。这些机会可能很少。地方政府应积极主动地促进在这些地区和这些地块上的集约发展"。

Clearly the appeal site is not one of the "most accessible sites", but it is located within a more local centre, where such facilities would be best located. It allows for the combining of trips, e.g. to undertake some shopping and then enjoy a coffee, in the same small shopping area.
上诉地点显然不是 "最方便的地点 "之一，但它位于一个较偏僻的中心地带，是这类设施的最佳地点。在这里，人们可以把购物和喝咖啡结合起来。

2.5 Parking is specifically considered under the general heading of "Managing Travel Demand", and should be considered in that context. Paragraph 49 repeats some of the guidance from the previous version of PPG 13 on how controlling car parking can influence how people travel. It goes on to state that
2.5 在 "管理出行需求 "的总标题下专门讨论了停车问题，因此应在此背景下加以考虑。第 49 段重复了前一版 PPG 13 中关于控制停车位如何影响人们出行方式的一些指导意见。该段还指出

"Car parking also takes up a large amount of space in development, is costly to business and reduces density. Reducing the amount of parking in new development (and in the expansion and change of use in existing development) is essential, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable travel choices.
"停车场也占用了开发项目的大量空间，对企业来说成本高昂，而且降低了密度。作为一揽子规划和交通措施的一部分，减少新开发项目（以及现有开发项目的扩建和用途变更）中的停车位数量对于促进可持续的出行选择至关重要。

A requirement to provide more car parking in association with this change of use is in conflict with this guidance.
要求在改变用途时提供更多停车位的规定与该指南相冲突。

In paragraph 51, it advises that authorities should:-
第 51 段建议有关当局应

"not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls."
"不要求开发商提供比他们自己所希望的更多的停车位，除非在特殊情况下，例如对道路安全有重大影响，而通过引入或实施路边停车控制又无法解决的情况"。

This is, perhaps the most important item of guidance for this appeal proposal. The Authority is, in effect, requiring more car parking to be provided. In order to justify this, it has to show that there are "exceptional circumstances". As the reason for refusal alleges that it would be detrimental to highway safety, it would appear that the Authority is claiming that this is the "exceptional circumstance". However, to comply with the guidance, any such impact has to be shown to be "significant". This will be considered later in this statement.
这也许是对该上诉提案最重要的指导。实际上，管理局要求提供更多的停车位。为了证明这样做是合理的，它必须证明存在 "特殊情况"。由于拒绝理由声称会对公路安全造成损害，管理局似乎声称这是 "特殊情况"。然而，根据指导意见，任何此类影响都必须证明是 "重大 "影响。本声明稍后将对此进行讨论。

2.7 However, even if it were to be established that the Authority is justified in this respect, the Authority will also, then, have to show that the concerns cannot be overcome by parking controls and/or enforcement. Again this will be considered below. This guidance is stronger than that in the previous version of PPG13, in that it removes the scope to argue that onstreet parking will, as a matter of course, cause problems, which appears to be the basis for the Authority's refusal of consent.
2.7 不过，即使可以确定当局在这方面有正当理由，当局也必须证明无法通过停车管制和/或执法来解决这些问题。这一点也将在下文讨论。这一指导原则比《第 13 号指导原则》的前一版本更为有力，因为它消除了路边停车理所当然会造成问题的说法，而这似乎是市政当局拒绝同意的依据。

2.8 Local authorities are advised, in paragraph 52, that "policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development".
2.8 第 52 段建议地方当局，"发展规划中的政策应为大类发展项目设定最高停车位"。

The parking standards of the Authority will be considered below.
下文将介绍管理局的停车标准。

3.1 The single reason for refusal refers to two policies from the West Sussex Structure Plan.
3.1 拒绝的唯一理由是西萨塞克斯结构规划中的两项政策。

3.2 The first of these is policy DEV4. This is a lengthy policy, but as the reason for refusal does not refer to any specific part of the policy, I will consider it, in full, below. It states that:-
3.2 第一条是 DEV4 政策。这是一项很长的政策，但由于拒绝理由没有提到政策的任何具体部分，我将在下文中对其进行全面审议。该政策规定

(a) Development should not be permitted unless: the travel needs it generates are met; where possible it reduces the need to travel; it achieves safe and convenient access by a choice of means to travel; it encourages and enables an increase in walking, cycling and the use of passenger transport; and the number and impact of motorised journeys is minimised.
(a) 除非满足以下条件，否则不应允许开发：满足由此产生的出行需求；尽可能减少出行需求；通过选择不同的出行方式，实现安全便捷的出行；鼓励并促进步行、骑自行车和使用客运交通；尽量减少机动化出行的数量和影响。

(b) Local Plans will include policies to ensure that:
(b) 地方计划将包括确保以下方面的政策：

(1) wherever possible, development is located close to existing passenger transport, walking and cycling networks and major public transport interchanges or where this can be provided as part of the development
(1) 在可能的情况下，开发项目应靠近现有的客运、步行和自行车网络以及主 要的公共交通交汇处，或将其作为开发项目的一部分来提供

(2) development caters safely, conveniently and adequately for all travel needs by:
(2) 通过以下方式，安全、便捷、充分地满足所有出行需求

(i) integrating with existing and proposed provision for pedestrians and cyclists and maintaining or improving existing patterns of movement on foot or by cycle
(i) 与现有的和拟建的行人和骑自行车者设施相结合，保持或改善现有的步行 或骑自行车通行模式

(ii) providing convenient, safe and attractive facilitiesfor pedestrians and cyclists;
(ii) 为行人和骑自行车者提供方便、安全和有吸引力的设施；

(iii) providing convenient, safe and attractive facilities for those with impaired mobility (including the disabled):
(iii) 为行动不便者（包括残疾人）提供方便、安全和有吸引力的设施：

(iv) integrating with existing and proposed provision for bus and rail transport, and maintaining or improving existing patterns of movement by bus or rail:
(iv) 与现有和拟建的公共汽车和铁路交通设施相结合，保持或改善现有的公共汽车或 铁路交通模式：

(v) securing the provision of new or improved passenger transport and the provision of convenient, safe and attractive facilities for users of passenger transport, including taxis;
(v) 确保提供新的或改进的客运交通，并为包括出租车在内的客运交通使用者提 供方便、安全和有吸引力的设施；

(vi) ensuring safe and adequate access to the highway network;
(vi) 确保安全和足够的公路网通道；

(vii) minimising the impact of motorised journeys.
(vii) 尽量减少机动车出行的影响。

(3) where necessary, transport assessments are undertaken to assess whether safe and convenient access by all modes of transport can be achieved, that the development encourage and enable an increase in walking, cycling and the use of passenger transport, and that the number and impact of motorised journeys will be minimised; and
(3) 必要时，进行交通评估，以评估是否可以实现各种交通方式的安全和便利的进出，开发项目是否鼓励和促进步行、骑自行车和使用客运交通方式，以及是否可以最大限度地减少机动车出行的数量和影响；以及

(4) where necessary, the preparation and implementation of travel plans is secured to encourage and enable an increase in walking, cycling and the use of passenger transport
(4) 必要时，确保制定和实施出行计划，以鼓励和促进步行、骑自行车和使用客运 交通工具的人数增加

It is of note that this policy makes absolutely no reference to car parking. It may be that the only relevant requirement is that the "travel needs it generates are met", if spaces to park are considered a "travel need". However, the provision of additional car parking spaces is hardly compatible with other requirements of the policy, such as minimising the number and impact of motorised journeys and encouraging the increase in walking, cycling and the use of passenger transport.
值得注意的是，该政策完全没有提到停车问题。如果停车位被视为一种 "出行需求"，那么唯一相关的要求可能就是 "满足由此产生的出行需求"。然而，提供额外的停车位很难与该政策的其他要求相一致，如尽量减少机动车出行的数量和影响，鼓励增加步行、骑自行车和使用客运交通工具。

3.4 A development of this nature, within this small centre, would "reduce the need to travel" by providing this facility close to where people would already be shopping and undertaking other business etc.
3.4 在这个小中心内进行这种性质的开发，可以 "减少出行需求"，在人们购物和从事其 他商务活动的地点附近提供这种设施。

3.5 On balance, the proposal appears to comply with the relevant parts of this policy.
3.5 综合来看，该提案似乎符合该政策的相关部分。

Policy NE13 comes under the heading "Transport". It states that:-
政策 NE13 属于 "交通 "标题下。该政策规定：

(a) In order to manage successfully the anticipated growth in demand for communicaton and travel, proposals for development should be permitted provided that, where possible, they:
(a) 为了成功地管理通信和旅行需求的预期增长，应允许发展建议，但条件是：

(1) wident ravel choice and promote walking, cycling and passenger transport
(1) 减少出行选择，推广步行、自行车和客运交通

(2) improve road and personal safety for the travelling public (3) integrate the different types of transport and the various provisions of service to maximise the efficiency of transpor systems;
(2) 提高公众出行的道路安全和人身安全 (3) 整合不同类型的交通和各种服务，最大限度地提高交通系统的效率；

(4) assist the promotion of an efficient economy and the achievement of sustainable growth;
(4) 协助促进高效经济和实现可持续增长；

(5) reduce travel growth, pollution and congestion in order to protect public safety, the economy, and the natural and built environment; and
(5) 减少交通增长、污染和拥堵，以保护公共安全、经济以及自然和建筑环境；以及

(6) promote access to facilities and services for all.
(6) 促进所有人利用各种设施和服务。

(b) Local plans will include policies to reflect the strategic intent in (a) above.
(b) 地方计划将包括反映上文(a)所述战略意图的政策。

3.6 Again there is absolutely no reference to car parking in the policy. Clearly given the very modest scale of the proposed development, it would not be given the very modest scale of the proposed development, it would not be
3.6 该政策也完全没有提及停车场。显然，鉴于拟议开发项目的规模非常小，因此不会有停车场。
possible for it to make a significant impact on the strategic aims expressed in the policy. One can only assume that the officers have quoted this policy because of its reference to improving safety, although how the requiremen for additional car parking will "reduce travel growth, pollution and congestion" is far from clear.
它不可能对该政策所表达的战略目标产生重大影响。我们只能假定，官员们引用这项政策是因为它提到了改善安全问题，尽管增加停车位的要求如何 "减少出行增长、污染和拥堵 "还不太清楚。
The reason for refusal also refers to Policy TR6 of the local plan. This comes under the heading "Highway Safety". It states that:-
拒绝理由还提到了当地规划的 TR6 政策。该政策属于 "公路安全 "标题下。该政策规定

"PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE REFUSED FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD ADVERSLEY AFFECT HIGHWAY SAFETY
"对于会对公路安全造成不利影响的提案，将拒绝给予规划许可

INCLUDING IN RELATION TO ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS
包括与准入安排有关的内容

INTERNAL ROAD DESIGN, CYCLE FACILITIES AND FOOTPATHS PROPOSALS WILL ALSO BE REFUSED IF THET RESULT IN THE GENERATION OF TRAFFIC, WHICH BY ITS AMOUNT OR TYPE, WOULD OVERLOAD THE HIGHWAY NETWORK"
如果内部道路设计、自行车设施和人行道提案导致产生的交通量或交通类型超出公路网络的负荷，也将被拒绝"。

Again there is absolutely no reference to car parking in the policy. Clearly a small coffee shop would not generate sufficient traffic to overload the highway network. It would appear that the issue must be one of highways safety. Unless there clear evidence that a safety problem will be caused by the proposal, there is no conflict with this policy.
政策中也完全没有提到停车问题。显然，一家小型咖啡店不会产生足以使公路网超负荷的交通量。看来，问题必须是公路安全问题。除非有明确的证据表明该提案会造成安全问题，否则与该政策并无冲突。

3.10 The final reference in the reason for refusal is Inf 2 of the Core Strategy Submission. The relevant extract from this document is included in the Appeal Questionnaire. Inf 2 refers to the need for development to "minimise the need to travel". The provision of a coffee shop in a small shopping centre would appear to do just that. It then promotes the need for travel choice. The use of other modes is certainly not encouraged by the provision of additional car parking.
3.10 拒绝理由中最后提到的是《核心战略呈件》的 Inf 2。上诉问卷中包含了该文件的相关摘录。信息 2 提到发展需要 "尽量减少出行需要"。在一个小型购物中心提供一家咖啡店似乎就能做到这一点。这就促进了出行选择的需要。提供额外的停车场肯定不会鼓励使用其他出行方式。

3.11 The next paragraph refers to development being close to facilities and services and a choice of travel mode, which is clearly the case here. It then goes on to promote sustainable transport, which is yet again in conflict with the requirement for more car parking spaces to be provided.
3.11 下一段提到开发项目应靠近设施和服务，并可选择不同的出行方式，这里显然就是这种情况。该段接着提倡可持续交通，这又与提供更多停车位的要求相冲突。

3.12 It appears likely that it is the final paragraph, before detailed maters concerning the A27 are explained, that the officers had in mind when referring to this part of the Core Strategy Submission. It states that:-
3.12 看来，官员们在提及《核心战略文件》的这一部分时，很可能想到的是最后一段，即在解释有关 A27 公路的详细问题之前。该段指出

"Planning permission will be refused for proposals which would adversely affect highway safety or where developments are not considered to achieve sustainable alternative transport modes".
"对于会对公路安全造成不利影响的提案，或认为开发项目无法实现可持续替代交通模式的提案，将拒绝给予规划许可"。

3.13 The issue of safety is referred to in the reason for refusal and will be addressed below. However, the provision of additional car parking is no compatible with achieving "sustainable alternative transport modes".
3.13 拒绝理由中提到了安全问题，将在下文中讨论。然而，提供额外的停车场与实现 "可持续的替代交通方式 "并不相符。

3.14 Again, there is no reference to car parking in this "policy". Indeed it is noticeable that there is no reference to any policies relating to car parking, either in general terms, or specifically car parking standards.
3.14 在这项 "政策 "中，同样没有提到停车场。事实上，无论是一般意义上的还是具体的停车场标准，都没有提及任何与停车场有关的政策。

3.15 I have investigated the car parking standards that are applied in West Sussex, by reference to the internet. The standards are dated 2003 and are expressed as maximum standards as required by PPG 13. The web site reference is www.westsussex.gov.uk/cs/mis/041103ht2b.pdf. A copy of the relevant page is attached as Appendix II to this statement.
3.15 我通过互联网调查了西萨塞克斯郡适用的停车场标准。这些标准是 2003 年制定的，是 PPG 13 规定的最高标准。网址为 www.westsussex.gov.uk/cs/mis/041103ht2b.pdf。本陈述附录 II 载有相关网页的副本。

3.16 The maximum standard for A3 uses i.e. food and drink (public houses, restaurants, cafes and private clubs) is one space per metres of public floor area and 2 for the bar, or for each 5 metres of bar. This latter provision was for staff. It indicates that staff parking should be clearly designated.
3.16 A3 用途，即餐饮业（公馆、餐馆、咖啡馆和私人俱乐部）的最高标准是每 米公共楼面面积一个车位，酒吧两个车位，或每 5 米酒吧一个车位。后一项规定是针对工作人员的。这表明工作人员停车位应明确指定。

3.17 The notes to the guidance indicates a change from the previous guidance, to relate the provision to the public floor area of the development. The basis for the 1 space per 5 sq metres appears somewhat limited. It can be seen that the notes states that "Analysis of recent application for a new A3 was found to equate to 1 space per ." In particular, I note that it refers to a singular application. Also, just because the standard appears to apply to one development, does not seem to justify its more general use.
3.17 该指南的注释表明，与之前的指南相比，该指南有所改变，将提供的空间与开发项目的公共楼面面积相关联。每 5 平方米 1 个空间的依据似乎有些有限。可以看到，说明中指出："对最近申请新建 A3 建筑的分析发现，每 个空间相当于 1 个空间"。."我特别注意到，这是指一个单一的申请。此外，仅仅因为该标准似乎适用于一个开发项目，似乎并不能证明可以更普遍地使用该标准。

3.18 It indicates that, as the standards are maximum provision, it is not appropriat to have different standards for town centre location. In then goes on to state that:- "The accessibility of the site may provide justification for accepting a lower standard in appropriate circumstances." This sentence does appear to suggest that the County council uses its standard not only as maximum standards but also as minimum ones. The applicant would appear to need to show that the site has good accessibility, before a lower provision would be accepted. This is not in line with PPG 13 guidance.
3.18 报告指出，由于这些标准是最大限度的规定，因此对市中心的位置规定不同的标准是不合适的。接着又说："在适当的情况下，场地的可达性可能是接受较低标准的理由"。这句话似乎表明，郡议会不仅将其标准作为最高标准，也将其作为最低标准。在接受较低的标准之前，申请人似乎需要证明该地块具有良好的可达性。这不符合 PPG 13 指南。

3.19 The note goes on to indicate that most A3 proposals "were change of use in existing retail areas." The next sentence begins "in considering such applications account was taken....", but the sentence is incomplete.
3.19 该说明接着指出，大多数 A3 建议 "都是改变现有零售区的用途"。下一句的开头是 "在考虑此类申请时，考虑了...."，但这句话并不完整。

3.20 Given the layout of the proposed coffee shop, I estimated that the custome seating area will be some metres in total. This covers the flat roofed area inside the entrance porch. There is a bar servery, but this is not like a public house, where customers sit at the bar, but is only a serving area for those seated in the main area. On this basis, the maximum standard would appear to suggest some 11 spaces.
3.20 考虑到拟建咖啡店的布局，我估计顾客座位区总长约为 米。这包括入口门廊内的平顶区域。虽然有一个吧台服务区，但它不像公共房屋那样，顾客坐在吧台前，而只是为坐在主区域的顾客提供服务的区域。在此基础上，最高标准似乎建议设置约 11 个空间。

3.21 It should be noted that the standards apply to all A3 uses. At one end of the scale they would apply to a stand-alone country pub/restaurant, where those visiting the development are making a trip solely to visit the establishment, where visits by other modes would be wholly impracticable and where customers may tend to stay for several hours, thereby limiting the turnover of parking spaces. At the other end of the scale is an development in a city centre, where trade is perhaps exclusively made up from those already in the centre, where there is good access by all other modes of travel and where the nature of the facility would suggest that customers only stop for a short period, thereby allowing any parking that is provided to have a very high turnover. In order to take account of these differences, standards have to be applied in a practical common-sense manner.
3.21 应当指出，这些标准适用于所有 A3 用途。标准的一端适用于独立的乡村酒馆/餐馆，在这种情况下，来访者仅为参观该场所而来访，其他方式的来访是完全不可行的，顾客可能倾向于逗留数小时，从而限制了停车位的周转。另一种情况是市中心的开发项目，这里的顾客可能完全是市中心的居民，所有其他交通方式都很方便，而且从设施的性质来看，顾客只会停留很短的时间，因此提供的停车位有很高的周转率。为了考虑到这些差异，必须以符合实际常识的方式实施标准。

4.1 Clearly, the car parking standards of the Authority are maximum standards Therefore, any level of provision below this is I accordance with the standards. In this case the maximum standard would appear to be some 11 or 12 spaces. A total of 5 spaces is provided on the site. Three are located in front of the site and two down the side. The Parish Council also permit staff of such facilities to park in the car park area opposite the site. This is not, however, a public car park, available to everyone who wishes to visit the area.
4.1 显然，当局的停车场标准是最高标准。在这种情况下，最高标准似乎是 11 或 12 个车位。场地内总共提供了 5 个停车位。三个位于场地前方，两个位于场地侧面。教区委员会还允许此类设施的工作人员在场地对面的停车场停车。不过，这并不是一个公共停车场，不是每个人都可以使用的。

4.2 By the nature of the proposed development, it is likely to be picking up business from those already visiting the shopping and associated facilities. Having done some shopping, customers may then decide that a coffee or other beverage may be desirable and so walk to the coffee shop. People living or staying nearby might also call in for coffee and or a snack. The appellant does not envisage many customers travelling any significant distance simply to visit this coffee shop.
4.2 根据拟议开发项目的性质，它很可能会从那些已经光顾过购物中心和相关设施的顾客那里接手生意。顾客在购物后，可能会决定喝杯咖啡或其他饮料，于是步行到咖啡店。在附近居住或逗留的人也可能会打电话来喝咖啡或吃点心。上诉人预计，不会有很多顾客为了光顾这家咖啡店而长途跋涉。

4.3 On this basis, it is considered that only a small number of customer parking spaces would be required. These could accommodate passing trade, for example.
4.3 在此基础上，我们认为只需要少量的顾客停车位。例如，这些停车位可满足过往商贩的需求。

4.4 Given compliance with the maximum standards of the Authority, and no apparent conflict with planning polices quoted in the reason for refusal, which make no specific reference to car parking, the appropriate test to be applied must be that specified in PPG 13. This states that authorities should:-
4.4 由于符合当局的最高标准，且与拒绝理由中引用的规划政策无明显冲突，而这些政策并未具体提及停车问题，因此适用的适当检验标准必须是《指导原则》第 13 条规定的标准。该文件规定，有关当局应

"not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls."
"不要求开发商提供比他们自己所希望的更多的停车位，除非在特殊情况下，例如对道路安全有重大影响，而通过引入或实施路边停车控制又无法解决的情况"。

4.5 This test is in a number of parts. The Authority will, as a first step, need to establish that there are exceptional circumstances here. In my view there are no such circumstances. Parking already occurs on the road opposite the site and there are parking controls restricting the extent of this. As the example in the above guidance refers to "significant implications for road safety" I have obtained the accident data from the police, covering a period from the start of 2000. I sought the data for the road stretching from a point some 375 metres to the north of the site and one some 200 metres to the southwest. These locations were selected for convenience of defining an area, which included the section of the road that is of interest. I have considered the accidents where injury has resulted.
4.5 检验标准分为几个部分。管理局首先需要确定这里存在特殊情况。我认为不存在这种情况。该地块对面的道路上已经有停车位，而且有停车管制措施限制停车范围。由于上述指南中的例子提到了 "对道路安全的重大影响"，我从警方获得了从 2000 年开始的事故数据。我从工地北面约 375 米处和西南面约 200 米处的道路上获取了数据。选择这些地点是为了方便界定一个区域，其中包括我们感兴趣的路段。我考虑了造成伤害的事故。

4.6 The data shows that there was one personal injury accident involving a vehicle parked on the B2179 Rookwood Road. However, it involved a pedal cyclist who fell from his/her cycle onto the front of the car, damaging the windscreen and suffering slight injury. It is unclear whether the cyclist would have fallen off even if the car was not parked there and whether any resulting injury would have been more or less severe. This accident occurred in May 2000 and the full description is given in Appendix II.
4.6 数据显示，有一起人身伤害事故涉及停在 B2179 Rookwood 路的一辆汽车。不过，这起事故涉及一名骑自行车的人，他/她从自行车上摔到汽车前部，挡风玻璃受损，受了轻伤。目前尚不清楚，即使汽车没有停在那里，骑自行车的人是否也会摔下来，以及由此造成的伤害是严重还是轻微。这起事故发生在 2000 年 5 月，全部情况见附录 II。

4.7 Should it be considered that this single personal injury accident constitutes an exceptional circumstance, which I do not believe is the case, then the Authority would have to demonstrate that some revision of the existing parking controls or their enforcement could not overcome these concerns. Until these tests have been met, there is no justification for seeking additional on-site car parking.
4.7 如果认为这起人身伤害事故构成了特殊情况（我认为情况并非如此），那么当局就必须证明，对现有停车控制的某些修改或其执行无法克服这些问题。在满足这些测试之前，没有理由要求增加现场停车位。

4.8 The extent of permitted parking on this part of the B2179 is restricted. The proposed development would not result in any increase in this. If there are times when there is a greater use of this parking than would have been the case without the development, the impact would be marginal and would resul in on-street parking in a section of the road where the Authority clearly accepts that parking can take place in a generally safe manner
4.8 B2179 号公路这一部分允许停车的范围受到限制。拟议的开发不会导致停车位的增加。如果在某些情况下，这些停车位的使用率高于不进行开发时的使用率，其影响也是微乎其微的，而且会导致路边停车位在该路段的使用率增加，而市政当局显然认为，在该路段停车总体上是安全的。

4.9 It is also of note that the site did, at one time, accommodate the post office. One would expect such a use, which could, in theory at least, recommence without the need for planning consent, to have generated more visits, many of which would not have been as part of other shopping trips, and therefore put as much or even more pressure on the car parking in the immediate area. One could envisage a number of retail uses, for which planning consent would not be required, which could attract more visits than the proposed use. A newsagent/confectioners shop is one such possibility.
4.9 还值得注意的是，该地块曾一度设有邮局。邮局至少在理论上可以在不需要规划许可的情况下重新开始营业，人们会认为这种用途会带来更多的人流，其中许多人流不会是其他购物行程的一部分，因此会对附近地区的停车场造成同样甚至更大的压力。我们可以设想一些不需要规划许可的零售用途，它们可以吸引比拟议用途更多的人流。报摊/糕点店就是其中一种可能。

4.10 Reference has been made to servicing traffic. In this respect, I do rely on a comparison with a "fall-back" situation, in that the vast majority of potential uses of the site would have servicing needs. The change to A3 use would not materially change this. Having made this point, it can be seen from the Appellant's own statement how she envisages servicing taking place. This is in line with the small-scale nature of the development and would not have any adverse highway safety impact.
4.10 有人提到了服务交通。在这方面，我确实依赖于与 "后备 "情况的比较，因为该地块的绝大多数潜在用途都有服务需求。改作 A3 用途不会对这一点造成实质性的改变。提出这一点后，从上诉人自己的陈述中可以看出，她设想如何提供服务。这符合小规模开发的性质，不会对公路安全造成任何不利影响。

5.1 The proposed development would be a modest new facility for the area an would be expected to generate most of its trade from those already living, staying or shopping in the nearby area. Visitors would be highly unlikely to travel to West Wittering, from outside this immediate area, specifically to visit this coffee shop. Therefore, the Appellant is confident that the extent of car parking proposed would be appropriate.
5.1 对该地区而言，拟议的开发项目将是一个规模不大的新设施，预计其大部分贸易额将来自已在附近地区居住、逗留或购物的人。游客不太可能从附近地区以外的地方前往西威特灵，专门光顾这家咖啡店。因此，上诉人确信所提议的停车场规模是适当的。

5.2 For the Authority to require a higher level of provision, it has to show that there are "exceptional circumstances". In this case it would probably have to show that on-street car parking would cause significant highway safety problems. However, there is an existing level of controlled on-street parking already in place here, which serves the other shops and facilities in the area. Whether this be used for a visit to one of the other shops in the area or the proposed coffee shop, of quiet possibly both, does not affect the safety of the parking and therefore there is no highway safety implication and consequently no exceptional circumstance.
5.2 管理局若要要求提供更高水平的停车位，必须证明存在 "特殊情况"。在这种情况下，可能必须证明路边停车会造成严重的公路安全问题。不过，目前这里已经有一定数量的受控路边停车位，为该地区的其他商店和设施提供服务。不管是去该地区的其他商店，还是去拟建的咖啡店，甚至是两者都去，都不会影响停车安全，因此不会对公路安全造成影响，也就不存在特殊情况。

5.3 If it were it be suggested that some other on-street parking would occur, which would create new difficulties, which appears highly unlikely, the Authority would need to show that this could not be remedied by the imposition and/or enforcement of parking controls. I do not believe that it would be able to do so.
5.3 如果说会出现其他一些路边停车的情况，从而造成新的困难（这似乎是极不可能的）， 管理局将需要证明，通过实施和（或）强制执行停车管制措施是无法解决这个问题的。我认为当局无法做到这一点。

5.4 Consequently, in applying the guidance in PPG 13, it is clear that there is no justification for seeking a higher level of car parking on the appeal site.
5.4 因此，在应用 PPG 13 的指导原则时，显然没有理由要求在上诉地点设置更多停车位。

5.5 Clearly, not all of the other shops etc in the immediate area are self sufficient in parking, which does result in some controlled on-street parking, and yet the Authority appears to be suggesting that this proposed development should be treated differently.
5.5 很明显，附近地区的其他商店等并非都能自给自足地停车，这确实导致了一些受控的路边停车位，但管理局似乎建议对拟议的开发项目区别对待。

5.6 If the Authority is to justify its claim that the proposal conflicts with the policies referred to in the reason for refusal, it would have to show that there are significant road safety issues raised, and there is no evidence that this is the case.
5.6 如果当局要证明其关于该提案与拒绝理由中提到的政策相冲突的说法是有道理的，就必须证明存在重大的道路安全问题，但没有证据表明情况确实如此。

5.7 The car parking standards are, in line with the guidance in PPG 13, expressed as maximum levels of provision. The proposal complies with these standard The Authority appears to be applying the standards, or some other arbitrary figure, as a minimum level of provision. This is not in accord with the guidance and there is no justification for adopting such an approach.
5.7 根据《第 13 号政府指导文件》的指导，停车位标准是以最高停车位数量表示的。该提案符合这些标准。这不符合指导原则，也没有理由采用这种方法。

As indicated in Section 3 above, the nature of each form of A3 use can vary significantly. Therefore, a common-sense approach has to be taken to the application of the maximum standards and to the resulting requirement for parking spaces. In this case there are 5 on-site parking spaces, with, in practice, a further two available off-street in the immediate area. The
如上文第 3 节所述，每种 A3 用途的性质都可能有很大不同。因此，在应用最高标准和由此产生的停车位要求时，必须采取常识性的方法。在这种情况下，现场有 5 个停车位，实际上附近区域还有两个路边停车位。停车位

maximum standard would appear to suggest a maximum provision for some
最高标准似乎表明对某些

11 or 12 spaces. Given the likelihood of customers walking or cycling to the coffee shop and the shared trips made to other shops, with a short break here for refreshments, and the accepted level of on-street parking nearby, it would be a practical and common-sense conclusion that the appeal proposal would have an acceptable level of on-site car parking, that its operation would no cause any significant harm and that, as a consequence, the appeal should be allowed.
11 或 12 个停车位。考虑到顾客可能会步行或骑自行车前往咖啡店，也可能共同前往其他商店，并在此小憩片刻以享用茶点，而且附近的路边停车位水平已得到认可，因此，从实际情况和常识出发，可以得出这样的结论：上诉提案的现场停车位水平可以接受，其经营不会造成任何重大损害，因此，上诉应予以批准。