A planning inspector has decisively dismissed an appeal against Dudley Council's refusal to allow an MOT testing centre in Brierley Hill, citing unresolved and significant safety risks to pedestrians.
Inspector Backs Council's Safety Concerns
The appeal centred on a site at the ABC Hand Car wash on Stourbridge Road. An application was first submitted in May 2025 to erect a single-storey building for vehicle testing within the car wash grounds. Council planners rejected the proposal, primarily due to fears over insufficient parking and dangerous vehicle manoeuvring.
Planning Inspector Gary Deane examined the case and noted the building had already been constructed, making the appeal partly retrospective. In his report, he firmly agreed with the council's original assessment.
Inadequate Parking Poses Pedestrian Risk
The core issue was the site's limited capacity, with only three dedicated parking spaces. Inspector Deane concluded this was wholly inadequate for the combined demand of the car wash and a new MOT centre.
"I share the council's concern that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the level of on-site parking would be sufficient to meet demand," Mr Deane stated. He warned that if on-site spaces were full, drivers would likely park on the adjacent footway for convenience.
"There is, therefore, considerable potential for overspill parking on the adjacent footway that would cause an obvious and significant obstruction to pedestrians," he added.
Proposed Mitigations Deemed Ineffective
The appellant had suggested measures to alleviate the parking crunch, including staggering MOT appointments and installing temporary bollards to prevent pavement parking. Inspector Deane dismissed both ideas.
He found no evidence that staggered bookings would reliably prevent overcrowding and vehicles spilling onto the pavement. He also did not accept that temporary bollards would be an effective deterrent against illegal parking.
"I conclude that the proposed development fails to demonstrate that it would operate safely in terms of parking provision, circulation and access," Mr Deane wrote in his final decision. "There would be an unacceptable risk to pedestrians from overspill parking on the adjacent footway, to the detriment of highway safety."
This ruling upholds the council's original decision and leaves the future of the already-constructed building in question, marking a clear victory for local planning authority and pedestrian safety concerns.
