Appeal 6000632

The appeal is dismissed.

I have assessed the appeal based on the plans before me, but I observed at the time of the site visit that the [name] was located on the land. Therefore, the development is retrospective. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and loss of natural light.

The appeal site comprises an established petrol filling station, located on a prominent road junction. The site is dominated by the existing semi-detached building, petrol station forecourt and the large canopy above the petrol pumps. The building is used as a sales area and convenience store at ground floor, with residential accommodation above.

The petrol station was a former semi-detached residential dwellinghouse. Indeed, the adjoining property is still occupied as a house, and there are residential properties beyond the rear and to the other side. As a consequence, the rear of the appeal site is set amongst the rear gardens of neighbouring properties, and the area has a prevailing residential character.

Located close to the rear boundary, the tank is set behind the existing building, in what would have been the residential garden of the original semi-detached house. As such, the tank is not viewed within the context of the commercial frontage of the site. Instead, positioned next to the shared boundary fence, the tank is viewed amongst the gardens of neighbouring properties, which have a residential character.

The tank is a large, bulky, metal structure and with its associated pipework, it has an industrial appearance. The upper parts of the structure are visible from the short rear gardens of the bungalows beyond the rear boundary. It is also visible from the rear facing windows of the bungalows. Therefore, due to its juxtaposition next to the boundary, as well as its height and functional appearance, it is visually harmful from the rear gardens and habitable windows of adjacent houses, and it is an inharmonious and incongruous structure in the context of the prevailing residential character of the area.

While residential gardens include outbuildings and ancillary structures, the large tank, with its industrial appearance, is not comparable to ancillary residential buildings and garden structures.

The tank replaced an existing garage and storeroom which have been demolished which open up the site to the front, and the tank is visible from the road. However, from the front, the tank is viewed within the context of the petrol filling station and its large canopy. Views of the tank from the front are also interrupted by adjacent buildings. In these circumstances, with a dark green colour, from the front facing aspects of the street the tank is not prominent.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore contrary to Policy BE3 of the Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Plan 2019 (the BP), which amongst other things, requires new development to be of a high standard of design and contribute to local distinctiveness and character.

Internally, the rear facing windows of [address] (No 6) serve a bedroom and kitchen. The windows directly face the rear boundary, and the tank is visible above the fence line.

The rear garden of No 6 is small and the distance between its rear elevation and the rear boundary fence is relatively shallow. However, while the tank is visible above the fence it does not extend the full width of the boundary. Therefore, due to the size and location of the tank and its juxtaposition with the windows of No 6, the tank does not have a significantly increased enclosing or overbearing effect on the occupiers of No 6. Likewise, for similar reasons, as well as the orientation of the rear windows of No 6, the tank does not cause a significant reduction in daylight to habitable rooms.

For the above reasons, the development does not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook and loss of natural light. As such, the development does not conflict with Policy BE3 of the BP, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development takes account of residential amenity.

Associated with an established petrol filling station and commissioned through a specialist fuel tank supplier, which complies with all current regulations, the diesel storage tank serves a purpose for the business. However, I have not been presented with any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the position of the tank is the only possible location for it within the site.

I acknowledge that the tank is required to increase the efficiency of the existing service station enabling deliveries to be made in full loads, thereby reducing the overall number of deliveries each month. A reduction in deliveries is also likely to reduce traffic levels, as well as noise and disturbance from these activities, and the development would not result in any unacceptable environmental issues. Even so, the identified benefits of the development are modest. Accordingly, although there would be no harm to neighbouring living conditions, the benefits do not outweigh the identified harm caused by the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.