Appeal 6002451

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and qualities of the Kent Downs National Landscape, with particular regard to tranquillity and dark skies.

The appeal site comprises a large modern warehouse and office facility occupied by a business specialising in mechanical and electrical services for rail infrastructure. It is situated in a quiet and sparsely populated rural location within the Kent Downs National Landscape (KDNL). Residential properties lie to the north and northwest of the site and are connected to it by the same rural road network.

The proposal would not alter the physical appearance of the site, introduce a new planning use, increase the approved floorspace or change the authorised daytime operating hours. The proposed variation of Condition 8 seeks to enable staff to attend the premises outside of normal operating hours to collect equipment required for urgent infrastructure repairs.

I have taken into account the appellant's evidence that such visits would generally involve one or two employees arriving in a light goods vehicle, collecting equipment and departing, and that incidents requiring such attendance occur infrequently. I also note that Environmental Health raised no objection to the proposal.

Nevertheless, the existing condition provides a clear period during which activity associated with the site ceases. The proposed variation would remove that certainty by allowing activity to occur at any hour of the day or night, including Sundays, [name] and Public Holidays.

Whilst described as access only, the practical consequences of a visit would extend beyond the simple arrival and departure of a vehicle. Such visits would be likely to involve movement along the access road adjacent to neighbouring dwellings, vehicle manoeuvring, opening and closing of gates and doors, staff activity, entry into the building and the loading or collection of equipment. During hours of darkness, vehicle lights and building entrance lighting would also occur.

The proposed restriction to 12 visits per calendar year would limit the scale of activity. However, the proposed condition would not regulate when those visits could occur, how long they could last, or the extent of activity associated with each attendance. Consequently, activity could occur during the most sensitive night-time periods when background noise levels are lower and when occupiers have a heightened expectation of quiet.

Furthermore, the proposal would permit out-of-hours attendance in connection with infrastructure repair requirements that may arise in a range of circumstances. The distinction between routine operational requirements, urgent repairs and emergency situations is not clearly drawn. Therefore, the proposal provides limited certainty regarding the circumstances in which activity may occur outside the authorised hours and the extent of the associated noise, lighting and disturbance that may result.

The appellant contends that the site is well contained and that its lower position relative to surrounding land and properties limits potential effects. Whilst those characteristics may reduce visibility in some directions, I am not persuaded that they would prevent nearby occupiers from experiencing the noise and activity associated with out-of-hours visits. Nor do I find that the separation distances involved are such that the effects would be imperceptible. The building is situated in what is a quiet and rural valley where noise is likely to travel easily and be highly noticeable. Even occasional events such as those proposed could be materially disruptive for surrounding occupants.

Taking these matters together, I conclude that the proposed variation would give rise to noise and disturbance that would harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies HB1 and NE5 of the Council’s Places and Policies Local Plan1 (LP) insofar as they seek to ensure proposals do not have an adverse impact on amenity or result in obtrusive light pollution. 1 Folkestone & Hythe District Council, Places and Policies Local Plan, adopted September 2020

The appeal site lies within the KDNL. The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in these areas, which is the statutory purpose of such landscapes. I am mindful of my duties to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes.

The proposal would not introduce additional built development or permanent external lighting. However, tranquillity, dark skies and the relative absence of activity during night-time periods form important characteristics of this rural area and are special qualities of the KDNL.

Whilst the proposed number of visits would be limited, the effect on tranquillity is not solely a matter of frequency. The timing and nature of activity are also important considerations. The proposed variation would permit vehicle movements, staff activity and associated lighting during periods when the surrounding countryside would otherwise be largely quiet and undisturbed. Whilst such activity may occur only occasionally, it would nevertheless introduce intermittent disturbance into a sensitive rural environment at times when tranquillity and darkness are most pronounced.

During hours of darkness, vehicle lights and illumination associated with access to the building would introduce visible sources of artificial light into an otherwise largely dark rural landscape. Whilst the site occupies a lower position within the valley, it remains visible in longer views from surrounding elevated land, including from the vicinity of [address] to the south. Consequently, lighting associated with out-of-hours visits would be capable of being perceived beyond the immediate surroundings of the site and would draw attention to activity within the landscape at times when darkness is an important component of its character.

I have taken into account that the Kent Downs National Landscape Unit did not provide a specific objection to the application. However, the absence of objection does not demonstrate that the proposal would conserve the special qualities of the designated landscape. Having regard to the site's location and the unrestricted timing of the proposed visits, I am not satisfied that the proposal would preserve the tranquillity and dark skies that contribute to the character and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. The proposal would thus not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the KDNL.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies NE3 and NE5 of the LP, and Policy CSD4 of the [name] insofar as they seek to ensure proposals conserve and enhance the special qualities of protected landscapes.

The Framework supports economic growth, business productivity, rural enterprise and the maintenance of infrastructure. I also recognise that the appellant's business undertakes work associated with the repair and maintenance of strategically important rail infrastructure and that the proposed variation would provide additional operational flexibility when responding to urgent faults outside normal working hours.

However, the Framework's support for economic development, infrastructure and rural businesses does not remove the need to safeguard residential amenity or to conserve and enhance National Landscapes. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the proposed variation would adequately protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers or the tranquillity and dark skies of the KDNL particularly given the unrestricted timing of the proposed visits and the uncertainty regarding the practical extent of activity that could occur.

I have further considered the appellant's references to previous applications relating to the site, however, these do not alter my assessment of the effects of permitting activity associated with the site outside the currently authorised hours.

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.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.