Appeal 6001354

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published for consultation during the course of this appeal. Having regard to its content and the nature of the disputed matters, I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise to either party by proceeding to issue this decision without seeking comments.

The Council granted planning permission in July 20171 for the erection of a greenhouse and timber storage shed on the appeal site (‘the original permission’). Condition 5 of the original permission precluded retail sales to the public from the site. Condition 6 precluded the greenhouse and storage shed being used other than in connection with the tree growing business.

The application which is the subject of this appeal sought to amend condition 5 to: “Retail sales to the public from the site shall only be undertaken via prior appointment, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.” I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether condition 5 is necessary and reasonable, having regards to the location of the site and the development strategy for the area; and 1 [name]. HPK/2017/0160 • the effect that varying condition 5 would have on vehicle movements, parking and consequently local amenity.

The appeal site lies to the east of [address] outside the settlement boundary of [site address] , as defined on the [name] of the High Peak Local Plan (2016) (LP). In such locations, LP Policy EQ3 seeks to ensure that new development is strictly controlled to protect the landscape’s intrinsic character and distinctiveness, whilst also facilitating sustainable rural community needs, tourism and economic development. LP Policy EQ3 sets out that this will be achieved in several ways, which includes supporting proposals for agriculture and related development which help sustain existing agricultural enterprises, and supporting rural employment in the form of commercial enterprises where a rural location can be justified.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land, a greenhouse and storage shed which are being used for the growing of bonsai trees, a horticultural use which falls within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) definition of ‘agriculture.’

The existing enterprise is described by the appellants as ‘low-key,’ but I have very little evidence before me to demonstrate how it currently operates, the number and type of trees grown on site, or the number of trees and other products sold. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the ‘occasional’ sales from the site anticipated by the appellants (around one sale per week) would in fact be reasonable or realistic, or whether they are needed to help sustain the existing agricultural enterprise. Moreover, I am not persuaded that the potential damage caused by posting products to customers is sufficient justification for retail sales in a rural location.

The requirement that retail sales would be undertaken by ‘prior appointment,’ or on a ‘collection only’ basis would not limit the number or nature of retail sales made from the site. Condition 6 of the original permission does not restrict the use of the existing buildings for the growing of bonsai trees. Mindful of this, if the enterprise were to grow or diversify, then the number of retail sales could be much higher than asserted by the appellants, with multiple appointments per day. This would substantively change the nature of the site, to the detriment of the intrinsic character and distinctiveness of the surrounding predominantly rural area.

The products (trees) which would be sold are not often found in shops in town or local centres and accordingly, the proposal would not conflict with LP Policy CF1 which seeks to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of defined centres in accordance with their function and scale.

However, I have insufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that the commercial enterprise is necessary or justified in this location. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that retail sales to the public from the site would constitute a related development which would help sustain an existing agricultural enterprise or enable sustainable growth of the business.

Therefore, I conclude that condition 5 which precludes retail sales to the public is necessary and reasonable, having regard to the location of the site and the development strategy for the area. The development would otherwise conflict with LP Policy EQ3 insofar as it strictly controls new development outside of settlement boundaries.

The existing access to the appeal site is from [address] with the field gate sufficiently set back to enable two cars to park off the carriageway. Subject to this arrangement and acceptable visibility splays being achieved, the County Highway Officer did not object to the proposal. However, this was based on an analysis of the information submitted with the application. For the reasons I have given above, I have insufficient information before me to be satisfied that the retail sales anticipated by the appellants, and therein very low number of vehicle movements per week, is reasonable or realistic. I also have little evidence in respect of existing vehicle movements associated with the horticultural use, including where staff park and deliveries are made.

Should retail sales to the public result in a greater number of movements than anticipated, there is a risk that vehicles would park along [address] close to the site. [address] is a rural, unclassified lane which only has a single carriageway and few passing places. On-street parking in this location, even for a short period of time, would cause an obstruction or disrupt the free flow of traffic which would be to the detriment of the amenity of residents along [address] and [address].

Therefore, varying condition 5 in the manner proposed would conflict with LP Policy EQ5 which requires all development to achieve a satisfactory relationship with adjacent development and not cause unacceptable effects on local amenity.

The Planning Practice Guidance advises2 that, since planning permission runs with the land, it is rarely appropriate to provide otherwise but sometimes development that would not normally be permitted may be justified on planning grounds because of who would benefit from the permission. Although the appellants have said they would be content for the condition to be varied so as to be personal to them, I have insufficient justification that granting permission rests on their personal circumstances.

Finally, I acknowledge that the appellants have invested time and energy into the site and understand the concerns raised regarding the way the Council dealt with the planning application. However, these are matters which fall outside the scope of this appeal, which I have considered solely on its planning merits.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.