Appeal 6002425

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for a full award of costs was made by [name] of FI Real Estate Management Ltd against Kingston Upon Hull City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The application form states that work has not started, but my site visit identified a number of containers along the site’s eastern boundary, with access open from the north and associated signage. As the containers are not laid out as shown on the Proposed Site Layout, for the purposes of my decision I have proceeded on the basis that the development is yet to commence.

The appellant suggests that the proposal should only have a temporary 3 year permission. Although not referenced within the description of development, I have considered the proposal on the basis that this could be imposed via a condition.

I find the ‘blue line’ land in the same ownership to logically and functionally form part of the site as a whole, with no apparent reason why it has been separated from the red line area in the manner proposed. The plans identify it as having existing landscaping retained, but this has all been removed and covered with crushed stone. However, as I am dismissing the appeal, it is unnecessary to consider this further in relation to any validity or biodiversity net gain implications.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The site is a long and narrow parcel of land on the western side of [site address] , between the highway and the rear of properties along [address]. Its most recent use was as a car park, and has been vacant for a number of years. The proposal is for a change of use of the land to a self-storage facility, to comprise 72 storage containers of a colourway which could be specified by condition. They would be sited either side of a central access, with a new fence and sliding vehicular gate to the south.

[site address] is a heavily trafficked and well used road at all times of the day, both for local traffic and for visitors to the hospital, and sports and entertainment venues in the West Park. There are wide verges and dwellings on the opposite side of the road. As such, any harmful impact to the area’s character and appearance would be amplified by the significant number of people who would view it. This surrounding area has been predominantly residential for a very long time, plus some commercial premises, with the appearance being generally typical of 1970s inner city residential development.

The site boundary treatment alongside [site address] would remain, being weld mesh fencing and existing vehicular gates. This would allow views through to the containers, which would also be higher than the fence. The proposal would be partially screened by the existing vegetation and trees in this boundary and highway verge, but this would be far less effective during periods of leaf drop. Additional landscaping could be required, but it would not sufficiently mature during the 3 year period proposed to act as effective screening.

I accept that storage containers require a generally functional and utilitarian design, and they would be lower than adjacent dwellings, but in this context they would be visually incongruous. Although colour and finish could be controlled through a condition, this would not mitigate their impact to any significant extent. The layout would not present an active frontage to [site address] , but would be a long expanse of unsympathetic form, and create a somewhat oppressive character. This would be in marked contrast to the surrounding predominantly residential character. Despite its vacancy, the site’s existing visual impact is not prominent or a particular eyesore, due to the boundary treatment and openness allowing filtered views through to the dwellings beyond. The appeal proposal would be more harmful to the area’s character and appearance.

[address] Conservation Area (CA) boundary runs along the site’s western boundary. The National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') (2024) Paragraph 212 requires great weight to be given to the conservation of such designated heritage assets. The CA’s significance is focused on the historic development and architecture of the properties and general streetscene fronting [address], laid out in the 1840s and developed piecemeal over approximately the following 60 years.

The rear portions of the properties adjacent to the appeal site are not identified as having any elevated significance in this regard. The existing vegetation and boundary treatments of high brick walls or fences in those rear gardens would provide some screening, although there would still be some intervisibility above the boundary. However, the site would be entirely screened from view from [address] itself by the intervening properties. The Council’s Conservation Team concluded that the appeal proposal would not harm the significance of the setting of the CA, and overall I see no reason to disagree.

In conclusion therefore, although the proposed development would only be in place for 3 years, it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area during that period. This would conflict with the Hull Local Plan 2016 to 2032 (LP) Policy 14. This requires development to demonstrate how its design supports the delivery of a high quality environment, particularly with regard to the relationship with the surrounding built form city in terms of character, surrounding uses, scale, massing, and materials.

The dispute regarding living conditions relates to whether the proposal would generate a level of noise to the extent of harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings. The appeal site’s western boundary abuts the end of the long rear gardens of multiple residential properties. However, 3 of those dwellings lie between only 1.7m and 4.3m away from the proposed storage container locations, such that several windows are therefore very close to the potential noise source. This relationship is not directly addressed in the General Noise Assessment Technical Note1. The boundary comprises fences, walls, and dense vegetation, but the specific extent that this would attenuate noise is not demonstrated, including for first floor windows.

The appellant suggests that conditions would provide adequate control over noise. Restricting visiting hours would mitigate noise during quieter periods, which the appellant suggests should be only between 0900 and 2100 daily. The Council’s suggested condition would be much more restrictive, with visits only between 0800 to 1900 on Mondays to Fridays, 0800 to 1400 on Saturdays, and no visiting on Sundays and public holidays. There is the risk that setting too restrictive a condition would impact upon the operational function of the development, and would thus be unreasonable. However, I could have clarified exact timings with the appellant had I deemed it necessary. On this basis, I accept that the use could be controlled to occur only within generally sociable hours.

Cars and small vans manoeuvring at slow speeds in car parks or on access roads generate only low levels of noise. The Noise Assessment therefore identifies the only significant noise generation associated with the movement of storage materials to/from the containers as being the opening/closing of container doors, and closing of vehicle doors. Industry benchmarks show trip generation of 0.1 to 0.2 trips per container per day, and the appellant identifies that customer visits typically last only 15 minutes.

Even if these visits would be sporadic and noise events infrequent, the ‘sound exposure levels’ (LAE) at 1m of 76 dB(A) for a container door opening and for closing of a car boot, indicate that the impulsive spectral character of such noise would be likely more noticeable to receptors in the residential properties than background traffic. This would particularly be the case during periods of quieter background noise. On this basis, the equivalent continuous 15-minute noise levels presented do not conclusively indicate no noticeable effect above background levels for individual noise events. 1 Ref P25-502-M01v1, [name], 9 December 2025

Importantly however, although the container doors would not be directly facing the dwellings, there is no consideration of the noise of potentially heavy items being placed in and internally manoeuvred within the containers. The appellant asserts that it is simply untrue that storage containers act as a ‘sound box’ to naturally amplify any sound within, based on their self-storage facility experience. They argue that the Council offers no evidence to support this suggestion. Nonetheless, the appellant similarly has presented no technical evidence to refute this through an assessment of internal noise and reverberation.

There would also be no restriction on the extent of container use. With high demand as suggested, because the site is the ideal location for customers, it is not unlikely that use could be more intensive than typically assumed. The evidence also does not account for prolonged activity when filling or emptying the container on first or last occupation, with no indication of turnover rates to indicate how frequent this may be.

The appellant identifies that the lawful car park use could provide spaces for 76 vehicles, such that if resumed it would generate many more vehicle trips than expected for the appeal proposal, and associated noise and activity. However, this would predominantly be car doors, engines, and some radio or conversation noise. Based on my consideration of the potential noise character generated by the use of storage containers, I am therefore unconvinced that the fallback of a car park use would be more harmful. Moreover, residents would be generally used to car park noise due to this being the site’s previous use.

Residential development has been previously permitted on the site, which would also generate its own noise environment. Again however, the layout of development and type of noise would be significantly different that I do not find this to weigh in favour of the appeal proposal. I also note the existing adjacent auto business, but even were evidence before me that it has no impact on neighbouring residential living conditions, I have to assess the proposal on its own merits. A lack of neighbour objections to the appeal proposal does not indicate a lack of harm.

The second noise condition suggested relates to specifying the maximum noise to be generated once operational. The Council’s suggestion, with which the appellant has agreed, is that; “Before the use commences a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out as approved before the use commences and shall thereafter be retained.”

However, this condition would not in itself restrict noise to a deemed acceptable level, as it only specifies that some control over noise emanation should be undertaken. A more suitable and enforceable noise control condition would need to ensure that specified noise levels were not exceeded when measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises. Those noise levels could either be specified within the condition itself, or set in a future Noise Assessment to be submitted and agreed.

As the background noise level on the site’s western boundary has not already been measured and presented in the evidence, I have insufficient evidence before me to specify this level within such a condition. Specifying a typical background noise level would not accurately reflect the site circumstances, including the required rating allowance to account for the distance to the nearest windows.

However, I also find it would be unreasonable to delay the identification of this acceptable noise level until the submission of a Noise Assessment at conditions stage. This is because the permission would be unimplementable if mitigation could not be achieved to keep noise at that level, and I hold significant uncertainty of the predicted levels and potential possible mitigation for the reasons identified above.

Overall therefore, I find that the noise generation has not been sufficiently modelled to account for the specific circumstances of the site and proposal. On this basis, the proposal is likely to be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers due to potential noise and disturbance. Although this would only be for 3 years, this is a significant length of time for such harm to occur.

The decision notice cites conflict with the LP Policy 14, which I take to be the general reference to the need for a ‘high quality environment’. The Council’s list of suggested conditions also includes reference to the [name] 23 and 49 within the reasons for those conditions, against which I also find conflict. Together and amongst other matters, these require that employment development should minimise impacts such as noise and disturbance, particularly where the site is adjacent to residential properties, and that development of noisy uses should demonstrate that adverse impacts of noise can be mitigated and that there would be an acceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses.

The proposal would also conflict with the Framework paragraphs 135(f), 187(e), and 198(a). Together these require that new development should create a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, prevent existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution, and mitigate and reduced to a minimum any potential adverse impacts from noise.

The use would be acceptable in principle, in terms of the site being unallocated and with no policy prohibiting employment use. High local demand and the ease of accessibility are identified as important, with such storage sites needing to be close to areas of older and high density dwellings. The LP Policy 23 supports employment uses, although this is caveated to only be where design and amenity impacts are acceptable, which I have identified above would not be the case.

Self-storage facilities serve local residents and small business and enterprises in providing flexible and low-cost storage capacity. This therefore supports economic resilience, and in turn is supported by the Framework Paragraph 85, whereby planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt, with significant weight placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. However, the application form advises that the proposal would not create any additional jobs on site. The containers could also be used entirely for residential storage. I therefore find the direct economic benefit would be limited.

The Framework paragraphs 124 and 125 further promote and support the development of under-utilised land and an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses. Paragraph 125 identifies that decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused.

The appellant argues that a temporary permission should also hold weight as a benefit in itself, because it would make effective use of a currently unused previously developed land resource, and also allow the site’s future longer term development for housing as the Council’s preference. However, the physical structures on the site could be just as easily removed to enable housing even were I to grant a permanent permission, and the vacancy of the site in 3 years does not assure its future development for housing. I give this only minimal weight in favour.

Additional landscaping would be imposed via a condition, but although the appellant presents this as a benefit, it would only be required to mitigate the visual harm. It would also not have matured during the temporary permission timescale. I therefore find this to be a minimal ecological benefit. No crime or anti-social behaviour issues for the vacant site have been presented, such that its secure site boundary and CCTV would only provide a minimal benefit in this regard.

The appellant’s Statement of Case asserts that the LP is 8 years old and in need of review, that it does not accord with the latest Framework, and that local policy does not make provision anywhere in Hull for this form of use. However, it does not expand in detail on the suggested implications of this matter. The Framework paragraph 232 makes clear that policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the Framework’s publication. Due weight should be given to them according to their degree of consistency.

I see no clear inconsistency between the Framework and the [name] relating to design and noise, against which I have found the proposal would conflict. I also see no inconsistency that self-storage sites are not allocated or specifically identified within the policy suite. The LP Policy 23 identified above encompasses the use and acts in support, with no specific conflict having been identified with the Framework approach to such uses.

The proposal would provide limited direct economic, ecological, and security benefits, although these would also only be for a temporary period, such that I give them only limited weight in favour. The use of under-utilised brownfield land holds substantial weight, but I give only minimal weight in favour from the proposal being a meanwhile use.

In contrast, the storage containers would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area, and potentially to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers due to noise and disturbance. This would be in conflict with the development plan and aspects of the Framework. Three years is a long enough period such that I give significant weight to this harm.

Overall therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. With no other material considerations outweighing this conflict, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.