Appeal 6001522

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use to storage of caravans/motorhomes and boats (Class B8 [name]) (55 Bays) at Doverhay, [site address] , Hampshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01717/FULLS, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Council’s draft Local Plan 2042 is at an early stage of preparation, and its Policies attract little weight in my determination of the appeal.

The Council is concerned that information submitted by the appellant at the appeal stage constitutes new evidence and does not therefore accord with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The additional information responds directly to the Council’s concerns and expands on existing points that have been made. The Council has had the opportunity to respond during the appeal process. I am satisfied that I should take the submitted information into account in my determination of the appeal and that no party would be prejudiced by this.

The main issues are:  Whether the site is suitably located for the development, with regard to local and national planning policy, and  Its effect upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is in a rural location. It is outside a settlement boundary and is thus considered to be a countryside location, with reference to the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 (LP). Policy COM2 of the LP establishes that in such locations development will only be permitted if it accords with other specified Policies of the LP, or it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside.

None of the Policies specified under COM2 apply to the proposal. With regard to whether it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside, the nature of the storage use proposed is well suited to a developed area and there is nothing before me to convince me that a countryside location is essential.

With regard to Paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), whilst the proposal is for a use that is associated with leisure, it cannot be said to be a leisure use or leisure development in and of itself. The proposal therefore receives no support from Paragraph 88.

Whilst a general need for the proposal is evidenced in the submissions, I am not convinced that the site would meet a local business or community need with reference to Framework Paragraph 89, sufficient to justify its countryside location. This paragraph also mentions previously developed land, but the appeal site would not meet the Framework definition as it does not include a permanent structure associated with the previous use.

In summary, the site is not suitably located for the development proposed with regard to local and national planning policy. The proposal does not accord with Policy COM2 of the LP and Paragraphs 88 and 89 of the Framework for the reasons given.

The appeal site is characterised by mature trees and hedgerows that form its boundaries on all sides other than to the north where it adjoins the curtilage of a dwelling. Surrounding land is largely rural or agricultural, however there are pockets of substantial development close to the site, and these include other similar storage uses that can be seen from the lane. Thus, whilst the environs of the site could be broadly described as rural, they are not entirely undeveloped.

The appeal site is well defined by its natural boundaries. Owing to its narrow form it presents itself as the edge of the adjoining field. It aligns with the field boundary to the south and thus forms part of the network of hedges and trees that contribute to the area’s character and appearance.

The plans show that the verdant character and appearance of the site would be retained and would provide a constraint that would be sensitively accommodated by the proposed layout of stored units. When approaching the site along [address] in either direction, stored units would only become visible when directly alongside the site; in other longer views the substantial vegetation that bounds the site would provide screening. As a result, whilst it would be possible to glimpse the stored units, they would not be so prominent that their siting would harm the character or appearance of the area, particularly as development of this type is already a characteristic of the area and would not therefore appear out of place. Furthermore, the proposal includes additional planting including new hedges that would reinforce the boundaries and provide further screening of the site from the road.

Part of the roadside boundary of the site is enclosed by a close board timber fence. This sits behind trees and other boundary vegetation and for the most part is not prominent. In any case, although the concerns about its appearance have been expressed, it already exists. It does not form part of the proposal, and no further fences are proposed so it is not a matter that I need to consider further.

Several of the units would be stored underneath tree canopies, and they would all be stored within the vicinity of trees. There is the potential for this to cause some conflict with the use of the site, owing to the build-up of tree debris on units, the possibility of damage when larger limbs are dropped, and the likelihood that stored units would become dirty more quickly. However, many of the trees are mature so would have existed when the site was previously used in this way, which demonstrates that the use of this site was feasible despite this constraint.

The appeal site is within a local gap as defined by Policy E3 of the LP. The Policy establishes that development in such locations is permitted if it would not diminish the physical or visual separation or compromise the integrity of the gap. I have established that the site is well defined with mature landscape features. The visual impact of the proposal would be limited, and would not harm the character or appearance of the area. As such I am satisfied that the proposal would accord with Policy E3 of the LP.

In summary, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. It would accord with Policies E2 and E3 of the LP, which together seek to protect, conserve and enhance landscape character and maintain identified local gaps.

[name] have found that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area, I have found that the site is not suitably located for the development proposed.

It is relevant that the site was previously in this use for a considerable period. The planning history suggests that a storage use for 9 caravans was originally issued in 1978 on a temporary basis. Subsequent temporary permissions were issued. The number of units that could be stored was increased to 110 through a temporary and personal permission that was issued in 1998 and expired in 2003. It is suggested that there was a ‘special need’ for issuing personal permissions, but there is no explanation as to what that need was.

The Council gives no weight to this position; whilst I accept that the policy context would have been different the general planning objective to limit countryside development would have applied. Furthermore, given the length of time for which repeated temporary permissions were granted, it is reasonable to assume that further permissions may have been forthcoming beyond 2005. I therefore consider it appropriate to give considerable weight to the past use of the site in the planning balance.

Moreover, the site is well defined, and the proposed use would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Therefore, although the proposal would not accord with the Council’s approach to countryside development, no other harms would arise. Additionally, the nature of the proposal is such that most visits to the site would require the use of a private vehicle, to either bring a unit for storage or collect it. Thus, there would be no benefit to locating a use such as this in a location with better accessibility or alternative transport options.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 establishes that decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case I find that there are significant material considerations that outweigh the proposal’s conflict with the development plan, and the appeal should be allowed.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered these against the tests in the Framework and the PPG. I have imposed condition 2 to specify the approved plans, to give certainty.

I have imposed condition 3 to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. I do not consider it necessary to impose the related condition to secure a management plan, as condition 3 is sufficient to ensure appropriate landscaping works are carried out and retained. Conditions 6 and 8 are also necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, and condition 7 is necessary to ensure there would be no additional hardstanding that could adversely affect the retained trees.

I have imposed conditions 4 and 5 to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of the site.

Condition 9 is necessary to limit the use of the site to the development proposed, as Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) provides for a range of uses that could have various different impacts that could be significantly different to the low-key storage use proposed. Such alternative uses might not be suited to the location, and could have an increased impact on the ecological and biodiversity values of the site. Within this condition I have included a reference to the sales of goods as there is no need for this to be covered by a separate condition.

I have not imposed the condition that the Council suggested that specifies that all the storage shall remain outside the construction exclusion zone, as this is represented clearly on the approved plan, and the proposed hedges would prevent migration of the approved storage use into these areas.

I have not imposed the condition suggested to cover CCTV, as there is nothing to suggest that the installation of CCTV cameras would cause any harm. Additionally, I have not imposed a condition to manage the operational hours of the site as visits to the site are not likely to be frequent given the nature of the use hereby approved, and there are no sensitive receptors close to the site that could be impacted by such activity other than the dwelling to the north which is in the same ownership.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: PP-14137606v1 (Location Plan) and SL01 [name] (Site Layout).

No storage hereby permitted shall commence until full details of soft landscape works, including a scheme for the implementation of the landscaping works and measures for their protection throughout the course of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include: - Planting plans including details of the proposed native hedgerows, - Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), and - Schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities. The landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details, and in the first available planting season (October to March) following the commencement of the storage use hereby approved.

No storage hereby permitted shall commence until a method statement for biodiversity mitigations and enhancements, identified within Section 5 of the Aluco Ecology Ltd Ecological Appraisal September 2025 update has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include: - The purpose and objectives of the proposed works, - Detailed designs and /or working methods necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, where relevant, type and course of materials to be used), - Extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans, and - Timetable for implementation. The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the method statement and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting in association with the storage use hereby permitted, details of proposed lights shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Proposed lighting shall be minimal, shall accord with the advice at paragraph 5.3.6 of Aluco Ecology Ltd Ecological Appraisal September 2025 update, and follow best practice guidance outlined by the Bat Conservation Trust and the Institute of [name] (Guidance note 08/18 Bats and artificial lighting in the UK).

There shall be no storage of any kind to a height greater than 3 metres measured from ground level.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional hard surfacing other than the hardstanding currently on site shall be provided.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no close board or other form of solid fencing other than the fencing currently erected along the eastern boundary of the site shall be erected.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended), the storage use hereby approved shall be limited to the storage of touring caravans, motorhomes and boats only and there shall be no operations of an industrial nature on the site and no sales of goods of any kind whether by retail or wholesale.