Appeal 3373279

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for outline application for redevelopment of the site to provide flexible employment space ([name](g)(ii) and (iii), B2 and B8) totalling 4,627sqm, ancillary parking and circulation space with all matters reserved except access and layout at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/1571, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Outline planning permission was originally granted under [name]/22/0518 for the development described in the banner heading, and subsequently varied by permission [name]/24/1571 to amend the wording of Condition 23. For clarity, I have used the original description of development in the banner heading and

The outline planning permission granted under [name]/22/0518 was subject to a number of conditions, including No 23 which limited operations to the hours of 06:00 to 23:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 07:00 -20:00 on Sundays and public holidays. The reason for the condition was to safeguard the tranquillity of the countryside and amenities of neighbouring properties.

[name]/24/1571, the appellant sought to vary Condition 23 to allow deliveries and dispatches outside the specified hours of operation to all the units. The Council varied the condition to allow deliveries and dispatches outside the specified hours of operation to units 5-9 only. The reason for the amended condition was to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework November 2015 (HDPF).

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of existing residents of varying the condition to allow deliveries and dispatches outside the specified hours of operation to units 1-4 as well as units 5-9, having particular regard to noise.

In order to secure anchor occupants to facilitate the build-out of the proposal, the appellant has indicated that 24 hour operation is required. Although the precise use to which the employment space would be put and the identity of the operators has not been confirmed, the Council has indicated that it wants new and fit-for-purpose commercial/employment floorspace to come forward such as that which has planning permission on the site.

The site is situated between the A272 and A29, with housing located on the opposite side of the A29. The A29 passes through a cutting at this point and consequently does not screen the appeal site from the nearest houses in [address], [name] and [address]. The approved plans1 show units 1-4 located closest to the houses and facing away from the affected houses, thereby screening the service yards of all the units from the upper floor windows of the houses.

The Council’s concern is that vehicles accessing units 1-4 would disturb the closest residents at night as a result of activities associated with loading, unloading and manoeuvring. Although reference has been made to the Council undertaking its own noise monitoring, I have not been supplied with noise monitoring data by the Council. The appellant has undertaken noise monitoring which indicates that the predicted noise levels of heavy good vehicle (HGV) movements associated with the units would be significantly below existing night time noise levels on the A29. As a consequence, night time noise levels would be below the threshold at which a nuisance would be caused to residents.

The noise monitoring indicates that the majority of vehicles currently using the A29 at night are not HGVs, and the Council has raised a concern that increased HGV movements at the site would alter the character of night time noise. However, the appellant has explained that it is the frequency of traffic movements and the 1 LPA reference DC/24/1989 resultant noise generated, rather than the type of vehicle, which determines whether a nuisance would be caused.

The Council has pointed out that night time traffic levels rise significantly after 5am rather than being constant throughout the night. Since the noise produced by HGVs manoeuvring at the site has been shown to be significantly lower than the noise generated by traffic using the A29, residents would not suffer sleep disturbance even when night time traffic levels are at their lowest.

The proposal would increase the number of vehicles using the site’s access road at night. Approval has already been granted for units 5-9 to operate at night, with the approved plans showing units 5-9 being substantially larger than units 1-4 and capable of being serviced by large HGVs. Units 1-4 in contrast are smaller and designed only to accommodate 7.5 tonne vehicles, meaning that most vehicles servicing them are likely to be vans. Consequently, the night time noise associated with vehicles accessing units 1-4 would be modest compared with the noise generated by vehicles accessing units 5-9.

The appellant initially undertook noise monitoring in support of a planning application2 which was submitted prior to the pandemic. Traffic levels on the A29 are now lower than pre-pandemic levels. The Council considers that as a result, the movements generated by the development would result in a proportionately greater increase in night time noise, compared with the pre-pandemic scenario. However, the appellant’s calculations show that the comparative difference in noise levels would be only just perceptible to residents, and thus insufficient to cause a nuisance.

Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) states that in taking account of the acoustic environment, decision makers should have regard to whether or not an adverse effect is likely to occur, and whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved. The weight of the evidence before me indicates that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on local residents at night time. The range of measures put in place by the appellant, including an operational noise management plan, would ensure an appropriate standard of amenity for nearby residents.

I therefore conclude that varying the condition to allow deliveries and dispatches outside the specified hours of operation to all units would not harm the living conditions of existing residents, having particular regard to noise. The proposal would accord with Policy 33 of the HDPF, which requires developments to be designed to avoid unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby occupiers, such as through noise.

The PPG makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect. The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions which reflect those imposed on planning permission DC/24/1571. I have reviewed these conditions and agree that they are still relevant. For ease of cross referencing, I have retained the same numbering and indicated where originally attached conditions are no longer applicable. 2 LPA reference DC/19/0295

As the development has been implemented, it is unnecessary for me to attach the commencement of development condition. In the interests of certainty, I have amended both condition 1 listing the approved plans and condition 2 concerning the approval of reserved matters. I have varied condition 12 to refer to the updated noise management plan, along with condition 23 to allow night time deliveries and dispatches for all the units.

[name] have concluded that the condition can be varied without harm to the living conditions of existing residents, the appeal is allowed.