Appeal 6001559

[name] and B are both located within a wider complex known as [site address] . Although the appeal schemes relate to adjacent sites, the proposals are very similar. Accordingly, I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.

The proposal description relating to Appeal B has been amended in the banner heading above to omit the words ‘Retrospective Application:’, as it is not a description of development.

I observed that both sites have been laid with hardstanding in the form of road plainings. The site pertaining to appeal A was in use for the storage of vehicles with fencing along its northern and western boundaries. It appeared to form part of a larger site that extended to the east and south and was in use for the storage of vehicles including a lorry as well as a small number of shipping containers. The site subject to Appeal B contained rows of shipping containers with space between to allow vehicular movements. Both of the appeal sites were in broad accordance with the details before me. I have therefore considered the appeals on the basis that the developments have already taken place. Appeal Decisions 6001559 and 6001791

The appellant submitted an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) and Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) with the appeals, which did not form part of the planning applications. These do not involve a substantial difference or fundamental change, and the Council has been given the opportunity to comment on them. Whilst these documents have not been subject to public consultation, I am satisfied that it would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeals. As such, I have taken these documents into account in making my decisions.

Following consideration of the NIA, the Council has stated that the matter of the developments’ impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring properties could be addressed by means of planning conditions and will not pursue the fifth reason for refusal on the Decision Notices. Based on my observations, I see no reason to disagree and have therefore proceeded on this basis.

It has been suggested that fencing has been, or could be, erected that would enclose the appeal sites, under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (GPDO). However, it is not for me, under these Section 78 appeals, to determine whether such fencing would comply with the GPDO. I have determined the appeals on the basis of the schemes before me.

I understand that there are allegations of some unauthorised developments on [site address] that are not subject to these appeals. Reference has also been made to a number of determined and currently pending planning applications relating to nearby sites and that one of these is a larger site that includes the site subject to Appeal A. Full details of these are not before me.

The main issues for both appeals are: • whether the appeal schemes would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the appeal schemes on flood risk; • the effect of the appeal schemes on protected species; • whether the appeal schemes comply with the adopted policies relating to climate change; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal sites are located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Appeal Decisions 6001559 and 6001791

Policy QP5 of the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (BLP) reflects national Green Belt policy and states that the Green Belt shall be protected against inappropriate development and planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development unless very special circumstances are demonstrated. As such, there is consistency with the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that certain types of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to four criteria. In terms of the second of these (b), where there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, evidence has been provided in the form of published research and information from property and real estate consultants. This evidence indicates, amongst other things, that there is a continuing rise in enquiries for open storage and much of the space occupied in the Southeast region over the past few years has been for vehicle parking. Nevertheless, this general evidence is neither specific to the appeal site nor a more localised geographical area. Therefore, it fails to demonstrate criterion (b) of paragraph 155. On the basis that all the criteria of paragraph 155 must be satisfied, the developments would not fall under this exception.

Other exceptions are also identified in paragraph 154 of the Framework where development would be regarded as not inappropriate. Parts h) ii. and v. of paragraph 154 are most relevant in these cases as they are concerned with engineering operations and material changes in the use of land, such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds, provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Engineering operations could include works which change the physical nature of the land, including the creation of hardstanding. There is no evidence before me that the appeal schemes are associated with a material change in the use of land for the uses given in part h) v.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. In considering the concept of openness, the courts have found that it broadly has spatial and visual dimensions. The appellant has not disputed the Council’s claim that the sites were previously undeveloped.

Appeal A has introduced hardstanding, the open storage of vehicles, in a densely packed manner, and vehicular movements linked with the commercial use, to the site. There is also a lack of evidence that these vehicles are only kept on the land in the short term. Taking all these factors together, it has resulted in significant harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

Appeal B has seen the siting of shipping containers that occupy a noticeable proportion of the area, on top of hardstanding, in addition to vehicular movements generated with the commercial use, brought to the site. Moreover, moving shipping containers is not an easy undertaking and thereby constitutes a semi-permanent presence on the site. Taking all these factors together, it has resulted in significant harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

The surrounding area is level and due to the slightly elevated position of [site address] along with the existing low-level fence and sparse vegetation along the boundary to this road, far reaching views of the appeal sites and the wider [site address] complex are afforded. Appeal Decisions 6001559 and 6001791

With the prominent positioning of the shipping containers at the junction of [site address] ’s access to [site address] , Appeal B has resulted in significant harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Whilst the open storage and parking is set slightly further back, it is still visible from [site address] . As such, Appeal A has resulted in significant harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Erecting fencing, to enclose the sites, by utilising permitted development rights under the GPDO has been suggested by the appellant. Even if this were the case, due to the expansive views into the sites from [site address] as well as the shipping containers and any taller vehicles exceeding the height of any such fencing, it would have a minimal impact in reducing the scale of harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The purposes of the Green Belt, set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework, include assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The commercial appearance of the sites resulting from the appeal schemes has led to these urban uses encroaching into the countryside.

Consequently, the developments would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Reference has also been made to parts b) and e) of paragraph 154 of the Framework. Nevertheless, the developments do not relate to the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments. Moreover, due to the size and location of the sites, they do not represent limited infilling in villages.

In conclusion, the appeal schemes would not accord with any of the exceptions contained at paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework and are therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt in terms of the Framework and BLP Policy QP5.

There is no dispute between the parties that the sites are located within [name] 3, where the annual probability of flooding from fluvial or tidal sources is high.

Both the Framework and BLP Policy NR1 seek to steer development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding through a sequential test, even if the sites have a low chance of sewer, groundwater and surface water flooding and the developments are classified as ‘less vulnerable’. However, a brief assessment within the appellant’s written statements does not provide the information to apply the sequential test, which should include evidence of regard being given to the availability of suitable alternative sites in areas of lower flood risk. Consequently, there is insufficient information to determine whether the requirements of the sequential test have been satisfied and that it has not been demonstrated that the appeal schemes cannot be located in an area that are at a lower risk of flooding.

In light of the strict tests set out in the Framework to protect people and property from all sources of flooding, the use of planning conditions for the storage and infiltration of surface water run-off and a flood management plan has not led me Appeal Decisions 6001559 and 6001791 away from my conclusion on this main issue. Moreover, there are limited details in front of me with regard to the location of any runoff storage and swale feature, and whether these would be within the site or located elsewhere.

The second reason for refusal in the Council’s Decision Notices refers to the requirements of the exception test. Nevertheless, an appropriate sequential test needs to be applied prior to any requirement of an exception test.

For the above reasons, I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that the appeal schemes would have an acceptable effect on flood risk. Therefore, the developments conflict with BLP Policy NR1, which seeks to manage flood risk.

The EcIA covers all the land located at [site address] , including the sites subject to these appeals as well as other proposals that it states have already been undertaken. Multiple sites of ruderal vegetation at [site address] are covered in the EcIA, which are discussed as a whole and its removal are the same for each individual site.

Ruderal vegetation that was previously on the sites supported a range of plant species and potentially provided suitable habitats for protected and notable species including invertebrates, reptiles, breeding birds, foraging and commuting bats, and foraging badgers. Due to the habitats’ connection to [name], the EcIA also identifies that it potentially facilitated the dispersal of a range of species.

Whilst the EcIA recommends the creation of shrub or new ruderal vegetation and/or the enhancement of retained ruderal vegetation within or near to the site, there are no such proposals before me.

An appeal1 (the 2025 appeal) has been brought to my attention that relates to the layout of hardstanding and use for open storage at [site address] that I understand is on a parcel of land to the immediate north of the site relating to appeal A. In that appeal, the Inspector also had no such proposals before them, nor any evidence to demonstrate that there is an appropriate amount of suitable land that is, or would be, within the appellant’s control to enable such enhancements to take place, or that the appellant has reached any agreement with a third party in this regard.

Based on the evidence before me, I have come to the same conclusion, including the use of planning conditions, as the Inspector in the 2025 appeal with regard to this main issue.

Therefore, I am unable to conclude that any impacts on protected species would be appropriately mitigated. As such the appeal schemes are contrary to BLP Policy NR2, which seeks to avoid or, if that is not possible, mitigate the impacts of development on ecology. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/W/25/3371773 Appeal Decisions 6001559 and 6001791

Claims that a full sustainability assessment is not wholly proportionate was also raised with, and addressed by, the Inspector in the 2025 appeal who was unable to conclude that the appeal scheme complied with BLP Policy SP2 and the Council’s Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (SSPD), the latter of which sets out the policy links to the various topics that it covers

In view of the limited information before me, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion on this main issue with the appeal schemes. Consequently, the developments fail to comply with BLP Policy SP2 and the SSPD, which collectively seek all developments to adapt and be resilient to climate change, and not to have an unacceptable effect on environmental quality.

The fourth reason for refusal on the Council’s Decision Notices refer to BLP Policy QP1. However, the SSPD highlights that this policy is applicable to larger developments including 1 hectare or more in area, which are larger than the appeal sites. As such, BLP Policy QP1 is not directly relevant to this main issue.

The developments are consistent with paragraph 125 d) of the Framework to promote and support the development of under-utilised land. They also hold some consistency with BLP Policy ED1 (1), insofar as it seeks a range of different types and sizes of employment land and premises to maintain a portfolio of sites to meet the diverse needs of the local economy. However, the developments do not constitute the appropriate intensification, redevelopment and upgrading of existing sites and premises due to the formerly undeveloped nature of the appeal sites.

As a result of the scale of the appeal schemes and in the absence of compelling evidence that the developments are required in this location, I attribute limited weight to these benefits.

A lack of harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbouring properties and highway safety are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the proposals.

I have concluded that the proposals in both appeals would be inappropriate development and would therefore, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. I have also found that they would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. These are matters to which I give substantial weight as required by paragraph 153 of the Framework.

They would also cause harm with regard to flood risk, protected species and climate change. These factors weigh heavily against the development.

The other considerations in these cases provide limited benefits and, do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such the very special circumstances necessary to justify these developments do not exist and the proposals would be contrary to the Framework and BLP Policy QP5. Appeal Decisions 6001559 and 6001791

The appeal schemes conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeals should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.