Appeal 6001932

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was made in retrospect, and the main development is in place, as I saw at my site visit. The application form refers to ‘retention’ of the structures, but retention is not an act of development, so I have omitted this from the heading above.

The Council’s first reason for refusal states that the appellant has not provided sufficient information regarding the current and proposed uses of the site - and that use as a haulage business represents a material change of use from the site’s approved industrial use. The appellant has provided a cogent description of the operation, which is not a normal haulage business despite the company name. The appeal application proposal is, however, for physical works only. The scope of this appeal decision is limited to the actual proposal and does not address any possible change of use.

A landscaping plan submitted with the application proposes planting trees and shrubs within some narrow strips of land between the new retaining walls and neighbouring residential properties. The appellant states that this planting would be within their boundary. The ownership of these strips is not clear, however, as they are not shown on the location plan as being within either the application site or any other land in the control of the appellant.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) The character and appearance of the local area; and ii) Living conditions at neighbouring properties.

[site address] occupies an industrial site with a large industrial shed and rear yard, with houses backing onto its eastern and southern boundaries. At some point in recent years a number of trees were cleared to enlarge the useable area of the yard, which was then levelled and hard surfaced at a similar level to the shed. The appellant states that the yard remains at its previous levels with no additional height introduced. I do not have any topographical surveys or other conclusive information on this point, but the introduction of the retaining walls coupled with photographic evidence strongly suggests that the yard has been raised significantly on the southern and eastern boundaries. In any case, the levelled yard sits much higher than the neighbouring houses.

The yard is intensively used for the storage of materials, machinery and shipping containers, consistent with either an industrial or a storage and distribution use. The proposal includes an as yet unbuilt [site address] .5m high fence at the southern and eastern edges of the yard, on top of the retaining walls.

The newly raised area sits back only a couple of metres from the neighbours’ high boundary fences. Although intensive industrial activity and storage can be expected on sites like this, the development has transformed the appearance of this site on the interface with the residential area, where the retaining wall and fence (or the stored items if no fence) would form a substantial and unsympathetic feature. A development like this could potentially fit into local character without causing undue harm, but only with effective tree planting to soften these boundaries. Any new tree planting would need to be within the narrow and much lower strips of land between the retaining walls and neighbours’ gardens.

The submitted landscaping plan shows 6 new trees and numerous large shrubs, though notably no trees are proposed for a section of the eastern boundary where the gap is narrowest, and the raised yard is closest to the neighbouring houses. Most of the proposed planting would be sandwiched between high, overshadowing structures and little of it would be readily accessible for future care and maintenance. I find myself in agreement with the Council that the prospects for successful establishment and long-term growth are poor. The proposed provision for tree planting is therefore unsatisfactory. I am furthermore left in significant doubt about the appellant’s ability to carry out the proposed planting, due to the uncertainty over land ownership.

In the absence of adequate scope for new tree planting to screen and soften the harsh, overbearing appearance of the development as viewed from the neighbouring residential area, I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the local area. It therefore conflicts with policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (CS), policies ENV17, ENV32 and GP2 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (UDP), policy DW3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Designing Walsall and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which taken together aim to secure high quality design, conserve the natural environment and promote the planting of trees particularly in industrial areas. The Council also refers to CS policy ENV1 and UDP policy ENV18, but those policies concerning nature conservation and existing trees do not appear to be directly relevant given that the removal of the previously existing trees was not subject to planning control.

The Council and objectors are concerned about the impacts on neighbours’ living conditions through noise, loss of outlook, loss of light and loss of privacy. The appellant’s submitted noise report confirms that the noise environment should be acceptable subject to the introduction of [site address] .5m high noise protection fencing. The Council does not dispute this assessment. As set out above, however, this fence itself would not be acceptable for other reasons, so the current proposal is not an adequate solution to the issue of noise.

The houses to the east are set particularly close to the development. For much the same reasons as set out in the first issue, either the fencing or the stored items would be overly bulky and intrusive features in the close-range views from these houses and their rear gardens, harming their outlook.

There would, on the other hand, be comparatively minor impacts on light and privacy. The houses would retain sunny aspects, and even lower fencing could restrict overlooking satisfactorily.

Taking all this into account I conclude that due to potential noise and loss of outlook the proposal would unacceptably affect living conditions at neighbouring properties. It also conflicts in this respect with CS policy ENV3, UDP policies GP2, ENV10 and ENV32 and the Framework, which aim to create places with a high standard of amenity.

The development makes good use of an industrial site to support an existing business, in line with local and national economic objectives. I note the appellant’s comment that if this appeal is refused and the yard has to be removed, this would put [name] out of business as it would not be able to operate without the yard. This would be highly regrettable, but I am not convinced that the current proposal is the only way to address this situation. I do not find the economics and business needs to be overriding factors in this case.

[name] give significant weight to the economic benefits of the development and to the particular needs of the business, I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.