Appeal 6000558

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the development on protected species, (ii) whether it would accord with the policies of the Stroud District Local Plan 2015 (the LP) in terms of development within the countryside, and (iii) the effect of the proposal on the adjoining M5 motorway having regard to drainage.

The Council raises concern that insufficient information has been submitted on the development’s effect on protected species. The basis of the Council’s concern is that the site partly falls within an amber zone for great crested newts (GCNs), a European protected species (EPS) under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

The appellant claims that no GCNs would live on or near the site as it is surfaced with gravel. On my visit I saw vehicles parked on parts of the site as well as a garage building towards its northern end. However, the plot includes a number of mature trees as well as bushes, particularly towards the eastern boundary. The proposed office would only directly affect a small part of the plot but the defined appeal site extends well beyond the footprint of the proposed building. Therefore, parking or other activities associated with the appeal development could affect a reasonable extent of land that is either currently open or vegetated. As such, I consider there is a reasonable likelihood of GCNs being present on the appeal site, particularly as I am presented with no evidence to contradict the contention that part of the plot is within a GCN amber zone.

Paragraph 6.38 under LP delivery policy ES6 highlights the importance of planning decisions being informed by relevant ecological information. This is consistent with the Office of the [name] 06/2005, which at paragraph 99 stresses the need to establish whether EPS are present before granting planning permission. No ecological assessment has been submitted to show the development would avoid adverse effects on GCNs or that explains measures to safeguard any GCNs that may be present.

For these reasons, I conclude insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the development would cause no harm to EPS. In these respects, it would not accord with LP delivery policy ES6 and LP delivery policy EI4. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure development avoids detriment to protected species and enhances biodiversity. LP policies on development in the countryside.

The appeal site forms part of a complex of buildings used for employment purposes. The commercial estate lies outside any settlement as defined under LP core policy CP3 and the surrounding area consists primarily of fields. As such, the appeal site lies within an employment complex in the countryside.

New buildings on rural employment sites are acceptable under LP delivery policy EI4 subject to a number of provisos. These include that the development facilitates the retention or growth of local employment opportunities and that there are no suitable alternative buildings that can be used adjacent to the site or the locality. LP core policy CP15 states that proposals for development outside settlements will only be permitted in certain circumstances, including where they support the rural economy through employment. As such, there is a requirement to show an employment-related need for the proposal in order for it to accord with LP policies on development in the countryside.

The appellant’s submissions explain the [name] business is being sold as an on-going operation. However, due to the intentions of prospective purchasers of the business, the appellant wishes to retain ownership of elements of the complex including land on which 3 separate businesses are operating and a plot that has planning permission for 4 industrial units. The proposed building would be modest in size and used as an estate office and storage facility associated with the management of the retained elements of the complex.

The scope for the proposed building to be used as an employment generating facility would be limited given its modest scale. However, the appellant’s submissions indicate that it would also be used to help manage the estate and support the businesses that both already exist within the complex and that may occupy the permitted industrial units in the future. It is fair to expect an estate manager’s office building to be located within the complex for convenience

The office would be next to the existing garage building on the appeal site. However, the appellant’s submissions indicate that this is used by a car-related business and on my visit I saw the northern part of the appeal site occupied by vehicles. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this garage is not available or suitable for the proposed office. Also, I find no reason to dispute the appellant’s claim that there are no other vacant buildings within the complex that could be used as an alternative to the proposal.

Therefore, I find the proposed development would support the retention and growth of rural businesses and that there is no existing building suitable and available for its intended use. In these particular respects, I conclude the proposal would accord with LP delivery policy EI4 and core policy CP15 and that it would be acceptable development in the countryside. Effect on M5 motorway in terms of drainage.

The Council is concerned that insufficient information has been provided to show the development would avoid harm to the adjacent motorway, particularly in terms of the effects of drainage. I note National Highways response to the planning application leading to this appeal and its request for further drainage information.

The planning application form indicates that surface water from the development would be disposed of to a main sewer whereas foul water would be taken to a septic tank. No details of the drainage systems over and above this basic information have been provided but I am referred to no planning policy that requires such information to be submitted and approved prior to planning permission being granted. In this case, I consider it to be possible and reasonable to secure appropriate drainage systems that would have no effect on the motorway through the imposition of planning conditions. In arriving at this view, I have taken account of the modest size of the proposed office as well as the extent of land within the appeal site that does not adjoin the motorway.

For these reasons, I conclude the development would have an acceptable effect on the M5 motorway having regard to drainage. In these regards, it would accord with LP delivery policies EI4 and EI12. Amongst other things, these policies require development to avoid harm to adjoining land uses and they resist schemes that may prejudice strategic transport infrastructure. Other considerations and planning balance.

The proposed development would make a more effective use of a piece of land. Also, it would support rural employment. However, these factors attract only limited weight in support of the scheme due to the modest scale of the proposal.

I have found the development would accord with LP policies in respect of the second and third main issues. However, the overriding factor is the policy conflict identified in respect of the first main issue. The proposal would be contrary to the development plan when read as a whole and I find no reasons of sufficient weight to justify granting planning permission contrary to LP policies.

For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.