Appeal 3239735

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme seeks a change of use from agricultural land to a use for the open storage of building materials. As the appeal site is presently being used to store such building materials, I have therefore considered this appeal retrospectively.

The main issues are:- i) whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for an employment use having regard to the locational strategy of the development plan; ii) the effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the countryside; and iii) the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and dust.

The appeal site is positioned outside of any defined settlement boundary and therefore, for the purposes of applying planning policy, it lies within an area designated as countryside. Policy DM2 of the [name] & West Norfolk Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016)(SADMPP) seeks to restrict new development within the countryside to development identified as suitable in rural areas by other policies of the development plan. Some small scale employment is envisaged by Policy CS10 of the [name] & West Norfolk Borough Council Local Development Framework - [name] (2011)(CS) subject to the employment generating use meeting a local business need and satisfying a number of other criteria.

It is the appellant’s case that the appeal site is required for the open storage of building materials, including reclaimed materials until such a time as they can be re-used by the appellant. Indeed, at the time of my site visit, I observed there to be a small portion of the appeal site set aside for the storage of tiles, paving slabs, window frames, railway sleepers and other materials commensurate with the building trade. However, whilst the appellant’s personal preference is acknowledged, there is very little information provided to demonstrate that the use of the land is a local employment generating use nor does the proposal adequately justify a need for the use at this particular location. The appeal scheme therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy CS10 of the CS.

Consequently, the appeal site is not a location to which an employment use should be directed and it would clearly conflict with the provisions of SADMPP Policy DM2 and CS Policy CS10, the requirements of which are set out above. In addition, it would be contrary to [name] CS01, CS02, CS06, and Policy DM3 and of the SADMPP. Among other things, these policies seek to limit development within rural areas.

The Council’s first reason for refusal also cites a conflict with SADMPP Policy DM15 and [name] CS08 and CS12, however, these policies concern the requirement for a high quality design to avoid adverse impact on the environment, design and amenity. These matters are considered below.

In addition to my findings above, CS Policy CS10 also requires a rural employment exception site to have no detrimental impact upon the environment and be appropriate in size and scale to the local area.

The appeal site is a largely undeveloped parcel of land. Whilst two of its boundaries are bordered by the rear gardens of a number of dwellings, one boundary is relatively open to the agricultural land and countryside that lies beyond it, despite the presence of some limited trees and vegetation. Its rear boundary consists of mature trees and vegetation. As a result, the appeal site contains features that make a positive contribution to the overall semi-rural character of the site. However, the presence of stored materials, several vehicles and Heras fencing presents a cluttered and untidy appearance that detracts from the overall semi-rural character of the area. The appeal scheme would remain visible in views from the surrounding countryside and from neighbouring dwellings from where the it would be read as a prominent and discordant feature projecting into the countryside. The appeal scheme has a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the countryside and its design fails to respond to local context.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. It would conflict with [name] CS01, CS02, CS06, CS08, CS10, CS12 and Policies DM2, DM3 and DM15 of the SADMPP. Among other things, these policies require development to protect the amenity of the wider environment. In addition, it would be contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The appeal site adjoins the rear gardens of numerous neighbouring dwellings along [site address] and [address]. In addition, access to the appeal site is along the shared private access in close proximity to the dwellings of [site address] . At the time of my site visit, the surrounding area was relatively peaceful and tranquil.

There is little information before me concerning the existing use of the appeal site. I am unconvinced by the appellant’s suggestion that the site is not used by lorries or vehicles. I observed several piles of materials, which, even when viewed from a short distance from the gate, did not appear to be of an age or condition associated with the demolition of the previous building on the site. To my mind, I am not persuaded by the appellants suggestion that there would be no vehicular traffic accessing and egressing the site, particularly given that the size, quantity and weight of the materials would be unlikely to be moved by anyone on foot. In addition, I also noted there were a number of motor vehicles that were present within the appeal site at the time of my visit.

I find there is little credible explanation as to how the materials would arrive and depart from this location. A suitably worded condition could control the hours of operation in order to restrict the use operating during periods when neighbouring occupiers would be more sensitive to noise, such as during the early morning. Nevertheless, in the absence of any evidence regarding the levels of vehicular access to and from the site, the level of use and the number of employees, I cannot be satisfied that the comings and goings associated with accessing the site and the loading and unloading of materials would not be likely to cause noise, disturbance and dust to nearby residents. This would materially compromise their living conditions.

Furthermore, whilst the storage of materials is currently largely contained within a small area of the site positioned adjacent to the side boundary of 4 [site address] , the submitted red-line boundary plan includes the entirety of the parcel of land and would necessarily authorise the use of the land within the red-line boundary for the same purposes. As a result, the use of the site for the storage of materials could be considerably intensified as a result and there would likely be a corresponding increase in the adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before me I find that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the appeal scheme would provide satisfactory living conditions for neighbouring occupiers with regards to noise, disturbance and dust. The proposal would conflict with SADMPP Policy DM15 and CS Policy CS10 insofar as these policies seek to protect neighbouring uses and their occupants.

Reference has been made to building materials having been stored on the site since 1990 and I have had regard to the appellant’s photographic evidence. However, there is little evidence to support this claim and moreover, I note that the Council has previously undertaken enforcement action with regard to the use of the land for non agricultural uses and its untidy state. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there exists a valid fall-back position in this instance.

It has been put to me that the appeal scheme would lead to a tidier and cleaner site, however, no detail has been provided to demonstrate how this would be achieved. Moreover, visual improvements are unlikely to arise if a more intensive use of the site is undertaken.

The absence of objection from neighbouring residents is noted, however, this matter does not alter my findings above and therefore it does not provide justification for the appeal scheme.

Reference made to the appeal site being crucial to the appellant’s livelihood is vague and without any substantive evidence or explanation.

For the reasons given above, I find that the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.