Appeal 6001012

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

On my site visit I observed that an office and single storage rack had been constructed at the appeal site, however the other storage racks indicated on the plans were not in-situ. For the avoidance of doubt, my recommendation is based on the proposal and associated plans that were considered by the Council.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to noise.

The appeal site comprises an area of hardstanding formerly occupied by a garage block accessed through a lane off Channel Park Avenue. The surrounding area is residential in character with the site being largely enclosed by the rear gardens of several adjoining residential properties on Channel Park Avenue and [address].

The description of development includes the change of use of land for storage purposes (use class B8). This use could essentially accommodate a wide range of storage types, some of which would inherently create more noise than others. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the intended use is to run a scaffolding business with the proposal including open sided storage racks with corrugated iron roofs for storing scaffolding materials.

This intended use would include the movement and loading/unloading of scaffolding to/from vehicles. These activities, by their nature would generate various vehicular movements in low gears and sudden high peaks of noise, such as loud metallic “clanging” noises and other noise from poles and items being in contact with each other, the racks and vehicles. Furthermore, due to the open sided design of the storage racks, there would be no noise attenuation from these movements, which are likely to be highly discernible above any lawful use of the site and background noise levels.

Given the close proximity with neighbouring properties, the noise arising from this use would be highly discernible, particularly during the summer months when residents may spend more time outside in their gardens. Due to the noise generated, the frequency, sporadic and unpredictable timing of the noise events, they would exceed what would normally be expected within a residential area.

[name] have had regard to the scope of suitably worded planning conditions, such as those in respect of the hours of use, and the potential for basic mitigation measures, it is simply not demonstrated how this could fully or adequately mitigate noise levels, that from the evidence before me, would seem inherent in this appeal proposal. The proposal would therefore have a significantly adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in relation to noise.

Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2019) which requires development to provide satisfactory protection from noise disturbance for both new and existing residents. Furthermore, it would not comply with paragraphs 135(f) and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to promote residential living conditions including taking into account the likely effects of noise impact from new development.

I acknowledge that there may be an absence of smaller storage yards in the Plymouth area, although there is limited substantiation of this. There is some development plan and National Planning Policy Framework support from the provision of an employment use, and the associated economic and social benefits of the use, which attract positive weight in favour of the scheme. While it would bring back into use previously developed land, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that if the development did not proceed it could lead to antisocial behaviour at the site.

However, the proposal must be considered in the context of its location within a residential area, where it would have a significantly harmful and unacceptable effect on the living conditions of a number of neighbouring occupiers, for which, from what is before me conditions could not satisfactorily overcome this harm. This matter attracts significant weight against the appeal scheme and outweighs its policy compliance and benefits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole. There are no material considerations advanced that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.