Appeal 6002014

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address in the banner heading above is taken from the appeal form which is the same as the decision notice. This is more accurate than the address given in the planning application form.

Reference to ‘retrospective’ in the description of the proposal is not a form of development. I have therefore amended the description in the banner heading above accordingly. However, during my site visit I saw that the development has already been carried out, but for the avoidance of doubt I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The description of development given on the planning application form refers to a change of use from office. However, the main parties have agreed the previous use was a hairdressers. I have amended the description accordingly and I am satisfied there are no implications of this for anyone party to this appeal. I have also included reference to the ground floor in the description, as this more accurately describes the proposal.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character of the area; • whether the proposal meets the day to day requirements or provides additional benefits to the local community; • whether the proposal increases the risk of flooding; • the effect of the proposal on the safety of highway users; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and pollution; and, • if inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. Development within the Green Belt is inappropriate with the exception of the types of development listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. Policies SP1 and QP5 of the Borough Local Plan 2022 (the BLP) seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development in line with the Framework. In addition, Policy NP/HOU4 of the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan 2019 (the HWNP) states that changes of use within the Green Belt should have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than that of the existing building.

The exception outlined at paragraph 154 h) v. of the Framework relates to material changes in the use of land as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The Council’s case indicates that the purpose of the Green Belt in this location is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Based on the information submitted and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree.

The appeal proposal is for the change of use of the ground floor of the appeal building to car sales and the submitted plans show the storage of vehicles on the land to the rear of the building. The change of use to the ground floor of the appeal building itself does not cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt in spatial or visual terms because it already exists.

With regards to the land to the rear of the building, the submitted plans show the storage of 19 vehicles, covering the majority of the space. During my site visit I saw that 19 vehicles were being stored on the land along with some tyres and other materials. Prior to this use, the Council describes the land as open and unobstructed, which the appellant does not dispute. Although the proposal does not include any new structures, the storage of vehicles introduces visual clutter to the site, thereby reducing its openness.

Furthermore, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic, can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt (Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone]). It is stated that the car sales use is low intensity, but there is little to substantiate this and there is nothing to control the frequency of vehicle movements both within the site and to and from the site. Therefore, in my judgement, the potential for up to 19 vehicles being manoeuvred, results in an increase in activity that has an adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

The adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt in visual and spatial terms is primarily noticeable from adjacent properties. The site is contained by tall fencing and so visibility from the public realm is limited. However, the visual effect is noticeable from public viewpoints on [address] when the vehicular access gates are open. The proposal also, therefore, represents encroachment into the countryside. Thus, it also conflicts with the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt.

Taking all of the above into account, the proposal has a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt and conflicts with one of the Green Belt purposes. The proposal does not meet the exception in paragraph 154 h) v. of the Framework and is therefore, inappropriate development. As such, it conflicts with HWNP Policy NP/HOU4.

The appeal premises is one of three terraced commercial units. Beyond this, there is a ribbon of residential development extending to the north along [address]. The land to the west of the site on the opposite side of the road is undeveloped with dense tree cover along the boundary. To the east and south of the site is grassland beyond which is [name].

Notwithstanding the ribbon development along [address], the area has a prevailing rural character. The properties fronting [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site have generous rear gardens. [name] could see that some have sheds or other domestic structures, the garden areas are generally open and undeveloped, contributing positively to the character of the area.

By contrast, the storage of vehicles, taking up the majority of the open area to the rear of the appeal premises, has an urbanising effect, detracting from the area’s rural character. Furthermore, the intensity of the use, by virtue of the number of vehicles to be stored and the associated activity from vehicle movements, is at odds with what is a predominantly residential area.

I therefore find that the proposal is harmful to the character of the area. As such, it conflicts with [name] QP1 and QP3 and [name]/HOU1 and NP/OE1. Taken together, these policies seek, amongst other things, developments which positively contribute to the character of the places in which they are located, which respect and enhance the local environment and where possible, improve the visual appearance of land.

The appeal site is located outside of any centre defined in the BLP. In such locations, Policy TR7 of the BLP states that where it is proposed to change the use of a shop, an assessment will be made of its value to the local community. If the shop fulfils a function of benefit to the local community, the policy requires development proposals to provide evidence of an appropriate period of marketing for retail use. The supporting text to Policy TR7 recognises the community function of shops located outside of defined centres and their role in providing convenient access to day to day requirements.

Additionally, BLP Policy ED3 states that proposals for employment development on sites currently used for non-employment purposes will be supported where benefits arising from the proposed use would exceed the benefit of retaining the existing use.

The appellant asserts that the Council’s assessment that the hairdressers was of community value is not supported by evidence. However, I consider that such a use would contribute to meeting the day to day requirements of the local community and therefore would be of value to the community. By contrast, a car sales use is unlikely to meet the day to day requirements of the local community.

It is stated that the appeal premises was vacant for two years following the closure of the hairdressers and the commencement of the car sales use and that there was an ongoing marketing strategy. However, there is limited evidence submitted to demonstrate that the premises was marketed for retail use for an appropriate period of time, as required by Policy TR7.

Cited benefits of the proposal include its contribution to the local economy through the provision of direct employment, as well as support to other local enterprises by contracting mechanical, valeting and other services to nearby garages and other providers. There is little before me to demonstrate the scale of this benefit, however given the scale of the proposal, this is likely to amount to moderate economic benefits. Moreover, there is little substantive evidence to satisfy me that these benefits would exceed the benefits and community value of the hairdresser use.

Consequently, I find that the proposal does not meet the day to day requirements or provide additional benefits to the local community. As such, the proposal conflicts with [name] TR7 and ED3.

The appeal site is located in [name] 3 where Paragraph 181 of the Framework requires a site-specific flood risk assessment be provided for all development. Additionally, BLP Policy NR1 states that development proposals within [name] 3 will only be supported where an appropriate flood risk assessment has been carried out and it has been demonstrated that the proposed development is acceptable and that a sequential test has been completed. No site-specific flood risk assessment or sequential test has been submitted for this proposal.

The sequential test is intended to establish whether the principle of development is acceptable in terms of flood risk. It would therefore not be appropriate to attach a condition requiring a flood risk assessment and sequential test to be carried out. This is because the assessment may find that the site location is not acceptable for the proposed development. Alternatively, if any mitigation measures are required, it is not known whether they could be achieved.

The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal. Nevertheless, there is no evidence submitted to demonstrate whether or not the storage of vehicles impedes the flow of flood water or reduces the capacity of the floodplain to store water. Furthermore, whilst the appellant states that the vehicles would be removed from the site during times of flooding, there is no detail provided as to where they would be moved. It therefore follows that insufficient information has been provided to satisfy me that the proposal is acceptable in this location.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal does not increase the risk of flooding. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy NR1 of the BLP and paragraph 181 of the Framework which seek to manage flood risk. It also conflicts with Policy NP/SUSTDEV 02 of the HWNP which does not support development proposals in [name] 3, and none of the Policy’s exemptions apply in this case.

[name] QP3 and IF2 seek, amongst other things, safe and easy access for cars and they support development proposals that help create a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Additionally, Paragraph 116 of the Framework states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety”.

There is an existing vehicular access from [address] providing access to the site. There is also a pedestrian footway running between [address] and the forecourt.

The appellant asserts that vehicle movements to and from the site are modest and that they are likely lower than the previous hairdresser use. However, there is no substantive evidence submitted to demonstrate this.

As observed during my site visit and shown on the submitted Layout Plan, the storage of 19 vehicles leaves limited space for manoeuvring. Accessing a vehicle from the rear-most part of the site would require several other vehicles to be moved first. Based on my observations, this would likely involve relocating vehicles either to the forecourt or off site. However, no information has been submitted to demonstrate how vehicles circulate within the site or where they would be relocated if insufficient manoeuvring space is available. In addition, the appellant confirms that the forecourt is used for staff and customer parking, which further limits its availability for this purpose.

The absence of adequate vehicle circulation space within the site, could therefore result in vehicles being parked along [address]. This could lead to vehicle conflict at the access to the site from [address] and the potential for conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians walking along the footway.

Consequently, I find that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal does not prejudice highway safety. As it is unknown whether satisfactory vehicle circulation and parking can be achieved at the site, it would not be appropriate to require this by planning condition.

The appellant states that the car sales use has operated without incident since 2021 and that there have been no recoded collisions in the vicinity of the appeal site since 2020. However, this does not justify the appeal proposal in the absence of robust evidence regarding the number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed use and details of vehicle circulation within the site.

It is suggested that if the appeal site was changed to another use within Class E, this could generate higher levels of traffic, more frequent deliveries and greater demand for parking. Nevertheless, no detail of such a scheme is before me and without such information a full and detailed comparison with the case cannot be made. Additionally, there is no compelling evidence that the fallback position is a greater than theoretical possibility, or that if the appeal is dismissed the fallback would be pursued. On that basis, this consideration has little bearing on my assessment of highway safety in this case, which I have determined on its own merits.

While the appellant asserts that the Council’s objection on highway safety grounds is not substantiated, there is also little before me to demonstrate that the appeal development does not cause harm to the safety of highway users. In the absence of any detailed rigorous evidence and analysis, I cannot be satisfied the appeal proposal does not have an unacceptable impact on the safety of highway users.

Taking all of the above into account, I therefore find that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal does not have an unacceptable impact on the safety of highway users. As such it conflicts with [name] QP3 and IF2.

The upper floor of the appeal property is in residential use and there are residential properties immediately adjacent to the south of the site. Further residential properties are located a short distance to the north of the site.

[name] appreciate that vehicle repairs and cleaning are carried out off-site, as I have set out above, the proposal has the potential to result in up to 19 vehicles being manoeuvred around the site. This would, in my judgement, create noise, disturbance and fumes to the detriment of those surrounding residential occupiers.

It is suggested that acoustic fencing and landscaping could be secured to mitigate the impact on neighbouring occupiers. However, there is no detail submitted of such measures and, as such, I cannot be satisfied that this would adequately mitigate the harm identified.

I appreciate that there is no evidence from the Council’s Environmental Health service regarding noise and disturbance since the car sales use started operating in 2021. I also note that no objections have been received from neighbours. However, the lack of objection does not equate to a lack of harm.

The Council’s case also refers to the potential for an increase in customer footfall to create disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. However, it is not clear how customers visiting a car sales use would be demonstrably different from customers visiting a hairdresser use, or indeed any other use within E class. As such, I am not satisfied that the footfall from customers to the car sales use is any more harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers than the hairdresser use.

Nevertheless, taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal is harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance and pollution generated by manoeuvring vehicles. As such the proposal conflicts with [name] QP3, EP1, EP2 and EP4. Taken together, these policies require, amongst other things, that development has no unacceptable effect on the amenities of occupants of adjoining properties as a result of noise, disturbance or unacceptable levels of air quality

[name] have referred to above, the proposal has moderate economic benefits as a result of direct employment and support to other local enterprises. This attracts moderate positive weight in the planning balance.

Another suggested benefit is that the proposal avoids the prolonged vacancy and underutilisation of the appeal premises. However, the submitted evidence does not explain why the hairdressers vacated the premises and, as I have set out above, there is no robust evidence submitted to demonstrate that the premises was suitably marketed for an appropriate period. As such, I give this consideration limited weight.

I have found the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As set out at paragraph 153 of the Framework, inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (VSC). VSC will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it harms openness, to which the Framework requires me to attach substantial weight. Furthermore, the proposal is harmful to the character of the area and to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal also compromises the ability of the local community to meet their day to day requirements and there is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that the proposal is not harmful to the safety of highway users or that the proposal does not increase the risk of flooding. The moderate economic benefits that result from the proposed use and the potential to avoid the vacancy or underutilisation of the appeal premises are not considerations that clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and other harm.

Consequently, the VSC necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it is contrary to Policies SP1 and QP5 of the BLP and the Faremwork.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the VSC test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.