Appeal 6001029

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on highway and pedestrian safety; and • whether the proposed development meets the mandatory requirements for [name] (BNG).

The appeal site is within an existing employment area. [address] is heavily trafficked, used by heavy and light goods vehicles accessing the employment units, and also a through route used by a range of vehicles including buses and cars. There are pavements on both sides of the road intersected by the many accesses leading into industrial and commercial premises. However, during my daytime site visit I observed numerous instances of cars and larger vehicles parked wholly on these pavements, as well as vehicles parked in spaces at the front of most premises.

[site address] is typical of the surrounding area insofar as it is an existing employment site. It has a deep L-shape plot with a right angle bend at the southern end, and a tapered narrowing to the south eastern corner. It has a long, side access along the northern arm, which is constrained in width by the position of existing buildings and boundary features. The existing units are a car tyre repair workshop (no. 109), pharmaceutical distribution (no. 109a), and a car repair workshop (no. 109b). The appellant also states the no. 109c was a car sales pitch, which has since relocated.

The proposal would comprise the development of the rear of the site with [name] and B, bin storage, car parking and a turning space. The narrow width of the access lane would extend further south into the site, due to the positions of Building A and the bin store, and with no passing places. There would also be extremely limited visibility towards the rear, southern portion of the site, beyond the right-angle bend. The turning circle would be within the tapered area of the site, beyond the corner of Building B, and the swept path analysis shows it being very close to site boundaries, and not useable for larger vehicles.

As a result of the proposed layout and the siting of buildings and structures within the site, vehicles entering and exiting would be highly likely to meet each other without being able to pass. This would lead to vehicles reversing into or waiting on the public highway. This would lead to an increased risk of conflict between vehicles, and cyclists and pedestrians due to the heavily trafficked characteristics of [address].

Alternatively vehicles may need to reverse around the bend towards the rear of the site, which has limited visibility. In this location, employee pedestrians would be required to stand within a pinch-point on the already narrow access road in order to utilise the bin store. This would be a direct conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

Whilst there is no evidence before me of issues relating to the function of the existing access with regards to highway safety, the proposal introduces four additional storage units, and an associated reduced extent of passing and manoeuvring places towards the rear of the site. As such the existing and proposed access situation are not directly comparable.

Whilst the appellant contends that the swept path analysis confirms that vehicles including rigid HGVs can manoeuvre in the site and exit in a forward gear, and the access would have 4.2m clear width, this is not supported by the evidence before me.

The appellant states that HGVs would not be allowed on site. [name] have considered whether a planning condition could be imposed to restrict such vehicles, there is nothing before me to indicate that HGVs would not park on the highway, for example for loading and unloading, or robust evidence that the size of the proposed units justifies only a requirement for LGVs. In any event, it is not shown that LGVs would be able to freely pass each other within the site, such that the aforementioned conflicts would not occur. Moreover, access would still be required for emergency and refuse vehicles, and it is not shown that they would be able to access the site in a manner that would avoid the aforementioned conflicts.

[address] [name] (June 2020), DES 16, paragraph 55 advises that off-street car parking spaces should be a 2.4 metres x 5.5 metres, or more if bounded on one or both sides by an obstruction such as a wall or fence. The proposed parking spaces, including those adjacent to obstructions do not meet the required length. As such, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is not shown that the proposed spaces would be capable of use for the average car. Taking account of my concerns in respect of the site layout, the lack of functional parking spaces would exacerbate the vehicle conflicts that would arise through the site’s operation.

The appellant contends that the proposed use will not materially increase trip generation, as the proposal will improve storage efficiency for existing operations. However, there is nothing before me to demonstrate that the units would not be operated separately from the existing units. Nor is it shown that their use as part of existing operations could take place without the stated conflicts.

As such the development would have a harmful effect on highway and pedestrian safety and would not comply with the relevant provisions of policies AM01 and AM02 of the saved Local Plan1, and the Framework. Amongst other things, these policies require pedestrian and cyclist needs to be successfully incorporated into designs, including cycle parking, and to prevent conflict with other highway users.

Whilst not specifically referenced in the Council’s decision notice, the development would also conflict with Policy AM11 of the saved Local Plan, which allows a reduction below maximum parking standards, taking account of consequences of under provision in a particular location, amongst other things.

Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy2 is concerned with the management of the transport network through sustainable travel choices and strategies. Given the site’s location within an existing employment area, there is nothing before me to indicate conflict with this policy.

Policy CS17 of the [name] requires development to maintain, enhance and / or strengthen connections for wildlife, by creation of new habitats, amongst other things. However, having regard to the officer report, the Council’s second reason for refusal relates to the more up-to-date mandatory BNG regime. This requires developments to deliver a minimum BNG of 10%, relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat, unless exempt. This increase can be achieved through on-site biodiversity gains, registered off-site biodiversity gains or biodiversity credits. The biodiversity gain condition (‘the condition’), is a pre-commencement condition: once planning permission has been granted, a Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP), must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before commencement of the development.

If the appeal were to succeed, it would be subject to ‘the condition.’ Guidance contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it would generally be inappropriate, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to be refused on the grounds that BNG will not be met. The PPG also advises that decision makers may need to consider more broadly whether ‘the condition’ is capable of being successfully discharged.

The Biodiversity Gain Assessment (BGA), confirms that an ecologist undertook a site visit in February 2025, and describes the existing on-site baseline habitat. It confirms, with reference to the matrix that the proposed development would result in a net loss of biodiversity, with trading rules not met.

There are various inconsistencies within the report, and the matrix does not include the mixed scrub in its calculation. However, the BGA and the appeal statement, confirm an intention to comply with BNG requirements, with the appellant referencing targeted planting, habitat management and landscape 1 City of Leicester Local Plan (incorporating the City of Leicester Minerals Local Plan) 1996 – 2016, adopted January 2006. 2 Leicester City Local Development Framework, [name], adopted July 2014. enhancements. Moreover, there is space within the rear portion of the site for additional measures, the details of which, together with an updated matrix could be supplied as part of the BGP.

‘The condition’ sets out that development cannot begin until the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) has been approved. It would be for the Council to consider the BGP, including whether the measures set out at that time are acceptable and secured.

As such, I am satisfied that ‘the condition’ is capable of being discharged and I find the development is capable of meeting the mandatory requirements for BNG.

The proposed development would make efficient use of previously developed land with uses that are compatible with the wider employment area. The units would also lead to an increase in employment opportunities. These are benefits of the scheme that weigh in its favour.

The appellant asserts that there is evidence of need for the storage units, as a result of enquiries they have received. However this is not supported by evidence, and as such this limits the weight I attribute to this factor. It is also not shown that the proposal will enhance operational efficiency on an existing commercial site, due to the highway safety concerns arising from the proposed site layout.

I am mindful that cycle storage is not shown on the proposed site plan, however I am satisfied that the details could be secured by planning condition, should planning permission be granted.

I have found that the development is capable of complying with mandatory requirements for BNG, and that there would be economic benefits. However, I have found that this does not outweigh the harm in respect of the effect of the development on highway and pedestrian safety. In this case, I consider that there would be conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other material considerations that indicate the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.