Appeal 6002413

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form confirms that the development has started, as described by third parties. My assessment of the proposal is based on its merits.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the Breckland Local Plan (2023) (the Local Plan); • the effect of the proposed development on neighbouring residential amenity; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal site largely consists of a continuous open hardsurface. The appellant contends that the site is in an employment area, citing the range of businesses found around it. I saw many of these for myself. The salient point, however, is that whereas much of the land nearby is allocated as a General Employment Area (GEA) in the Local Plan, the appeal site is not.

Local Plan Policy EC04 applies to proposals for employment uses outside of identified GEAs and allocated sites. I shall consider the lawful use of the site in the next section of my determination, but for now it is sufficient to say that it may be for employment purposes.

Even so, it is not evident that Policy EC04 should only be applied where non-employment uses are to be replaced. The proposal involves an employment use and so, taking all of the above into account, I find the proposal should be assessed against Policy EC04.

A factory complex immediately southeast of the appeal site is within the control of the appellant. He describes his business as being engaged in medium to heavy engineering. Another local firm, [name], is engaged in the sale, repair, and MOT testing of vehicles, and is based some half a mile from the appeal site on [address].

The appellant informs me that the proposal “is not an expansion of [name] business”. He then goes on, however, to tell me that [name] employees would visit the site during the working day, and to provide me with a letter of support from the [name] (MD) of [name]; They clearly use, and indeed purport to rely upon, the appeal site for the proposed vehicle storage.

The above is relevant given the requirements of Policy EC04. The first of these, at criterion (a), is that it be demonstrated there are no other suitable sites available on identified or allocated employment sites. The MD of [name] tells me there are none. Whilst the Council have done little to contest this, no supporting evidence has been supplied. Given the policy requirement is that the position be demonstrated rather than simply stated, criterion (a) has not been satisfied.

Compliance with the policy may still be achieved, however, if criterion (b) and (c) are satisfied. The former requires there to be particular reasons for the development not being located on an established or allocated employment site including, at (b.1), the expansion of an existing business.

In light of the details set out above, I accept the Council’s position that the proposal involves the expansion of [name], rather than of the appellant’s business. I do not, however, see that this results in conflict with Policy EC04; [name] is an existing business. [name] says it is subject to expansion, and the facts of the appeal indicate that this is so. The policy does not restrict its support to the expansion of businesses on or adjoining the site in question, and I see little in the policy preamble to indicate it should be interpreted that way. Even if the proposal does not amount to “a site-specific operational or sustainability need” as stated by the Council, neither of these are evidently requirements of criterion (b).

I see no evidence of conflict with Policy EC04, subject to compliance with criterion (c), that the proposal would not adversely affect the type and volume of traffic generated. I shall consider this matter in the following section.

The site wraps around and goes between houses on the southern side of [site address] . The proposed use would take place close to domestic windows and doors and immediately alongside residential gardens. It would result in vehicle movements to, from, and around the site, involving the sound of engines igniting and running, illumination from external lighting and vehicle headlights, and the generation of exhaust fumes. Overall, the use has an inherent potential to harm residential amenity.

That harm may be mitigated by controls on external lighting and hours of use, as recommended by the Council Environmental Health officer. Also, the appellant tells me that around 15-20 vehicles will be taken to and from the site over the course of a normal week, which is a low level of activity.

However, I have been provided with very little to demonstrate how this figure has been identified, or that it could not increase significantly over time. In addition, I have no details of how up to 50 vehicles would be arranged and manoeuvred around the site; It is not evident that one vehicle could enter or leave without the need for others to be moved around, exacerbating the effects. In the absence of these details, I cannot be certain that levels of harm would be acceptable.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed use must be compared to the alternative. The appellant tells me his business has relocated temporarily from the neighbouring factory complex because it has a leaking roof which he cannot yet repair. He also describes his use of the appeal site as having included “ancillary parking, storage of raw materials, parking of 40’0 rigid trailer bodies awaiting repair and for deliveries, unloading of heavy goods by forklift and more”. The Council does not dispute this. Indeed, it tells me these activities could be resumed at the site “without permission”.

I have been given no reason to doubt the appellant’s submissions that this lawful use is not subject to restrictions, and that in the past it has resulted in the use of large vehicles and equipment, as shown in photographs he has submitted.

In its report the Council, on one hand, anticipates the cumulative effects if the lawful use of the site were to resume alongside the proposed use. On the other hand, it distinguishes between, and compares the effects of, the two uses. I see little to explain or support the first approach; The proposal is to change the use of the site to vehicle storage, not to a mixed use that includes the lawful and proposed uses.

In pursuing the second approach the Council has compared the effects of the lawful and proposed uses but failed to include the “storage of raw materials, parking of 40’0 rigid trailer bodies awaiting repair and for deliveries, unloading of heavy goods by forklift and more” or the absence of restrictions as elements of the former. As a result, I do not feel I can rely upon its conclusion that the proposed use would cause more harm.

That said, whilst I recognise the absence of restrictions, I see little reason to base my own comparison on the greatest harm to amenity the lawful use could potentially cause. Whilst the appellant informs me that the lawful use was significantly more intensive than the proposed one, it is not part of his case that he did, or would, use the site maximally.

Regarding the reality of the lawful use, I have few details to show me, for example, what hours were generally kept, how many vehicles typically came and went, or whether noisy machinery was often operated. That housing has been permitted very near the appeal site over time, as reported by the appellant, does little to suggest that any harmful effects of the lawful use were significant. It is certainly not clear that they were more harmful than those of the proposed use.

What is more, it is not apparent that the lawful use will resume. The appellant describes the prospect of his business returning to the factory complex as a matter of ‘when or if’ and tells me he could do so without needing to make use of the appeal site in any event. I see little to suggest the resumption of the lawful use at the appeal site is especially likely, or that it would cause such harm to amenity that its avoidance weighs in favour of the appeal proposal. Whilst the lawful use is a greater than theoretical possibility, I attribute only modest weight to it.

It has not been demonstrated that the appeal scheme would not adversely affect the type and volume of traffic generated, as required by criterion (c) of Local Plan Policy EC04. As such, it does not have the support of that policy. It is not evident, therefore, that the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to the Local Plan.

In addition, it has not been demonstrated that the effect of the proposal on residential amenity would be acceptable. The scheme does not evidently comply with Local Plan Policy COM03, therefore, which aims to prevent unacceptable effects on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants.

The Council’s objections in respect of highway safety are based on the prospect of the lawful use resuming at the appeal site alongside the proposed use. I have set out above that the appeal scheme does not include such a mixed use.

The Local Highway Authority has not objected to the appeal scheme, and the Council has not set out any reasons for concern regarding the effects of the proposed use in isolation. [name] saw at the site gave me reason to think safety would be compromised and, in the absence of an argument on this point from the Council, I see no evidence of conflict with Local Plan Policy TR02 in these respects.

The proposed development would support a local business in [name], which I do not doubt is successful and well-regarded. The MD has set out the need of that business for storage, and the benefits of the appeal site being so close to their main base of operations. He has also explained his concerns that should [name] not have use of the appeal site the business may suffer to the point of job losses. All of these factors weigh in favour of the appeal.

At the same time, as I have set out above, I have no evidence that an exhaustive search for other nearby sites has been undertaken, or that the wider area does not possess any that the business could use, if necessary.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that sustainable development should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans. The Council’s Local Plan was adopted relatively recently having been examined in public, and its policies do not support the proposed development. To allow the appeal would undermine the plan-led approach.

Furthermore, the Framework requires development to create places that promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. I have found little to assure me that the appeal scheme would do so.

Overall, the benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the conflict with policies identified above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

The appeal is dismissed.