Appeal 6002463

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from Use Class B2 to Use Class E(g), alterations and extension of existing industrial unit, replacing boundary fences, laying permeable hardstanding at T J G Morris Ltd, [site address] , Wigan [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/098893/FULL, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] of T J G Morris Ltd against Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council did not determine the planning application. However, it has indicated that had it been able to issue a decision, it would have refused permission for reasons relating to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

Whilst the Council has referred to [address] (No 3) in their first draft refusal reason, I observed during my site visit that the immediate property to the south is [address] (No 5). Furthermore, both the appellant and the Council in its appeal statement have set out that No 5 is the adjacent property to the south. Therefore, I have used this address within my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties in [address] and [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal relates to a commercial property containing a single storey building in a predominantly residential area. It faces [address] and shares its southern boundary with No 5, a semi-detached dwelling. To the north, the appeal property adjoins a narrow access road serving the rear of terraced dwellings on [address].

The proposed 2-storey extension would sit close to the boundary with No 5. However, as it would be set back from the front of the existing building, it would occupy only a small part of that shared boundary. The rear garden at No 5 widens as it extends east away from the dwelling, so the extension would sit alongside the corner where the garden is at its widest. Although the extension would present a 2-storey gable wall to the boundary, its limited depth and position mean it would not appear overbearing or significantly reduce outlook for the occupants of No 5.

A dormer window is proposed on the front roof slope of the extension. Its set‐back position creates the possibility of angled views towards No 5, however the splayed boundary provides additional separation from both the house and most of the garden. As a result, the proposal would not lead to a harmful loss of privacy for the occupants of No 5 when using their rear rooms and outdoor space.

Concerns have also been raised about the impacts of the proposal on the occupiers of [address] (No 7), which adjoins No 5 and is therefore further from the appeal property. Given the extension’s position and the orientation of its windows towards [address], there would be no undue overlooking of the rear garden at No 7.

Two dormer windows are also proposed to the northern roof slope, facing the rear of the terraced houses on [address]. The access road behind these properties provides only limited separation, and the elevated position of the windows could allow overlooking of rear gardens and rear facing windows. However, the submitted plans indicate that these windows would be fitted with obscure glazing, and the appellant has confirmed this. The windows are large and extend from close to floor level, suggesting they are not intended to be opened. With fixed, obscure glazing in place, the windows would not give rise to a loss of privacy for the occupants of the neighbouring properties on [address].

I conclude that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties in [address] and [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy. It would therefore comply with policies CP 10 and CP 17 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development does not have unacceptable adverse impacts on amenity and quality of life and is integrated effectively with its surroundings.

Interested parties have expressed concerns about the intensification of the use at the site, increased noise, working hours, the site access and use by heavy duty vehicles, operational concerns and the condition of the yard. These concerns are largely speculative, and there is no substantive evidence before me to support them.

The appeal relates to an existing commercial premises and the proposed use class only allows for industrial uses that are capable of operating within a residential area without harming local amenity. The Council has also suggested a condition to restrict hours of operation, which would further protect neighbouring living conditions. The site already has an established access and parking area, and there is no evidence that the proposal would obstruct the rear access serving properties on [address]. Planning permission would not override any legal rights of access. Furthermore, the Council has not raised objections in relation to these matters, and I see no reason to reach a different view.

There have been previous planning applications at the appeal property, which have been refused permission by the Council. However, I do not have the full details of these before me against which to draw any comparisons to the appeal proposal. Nevertheless, I have determined the appeal on its own merits and have found that it would comply with the development plan and material considerations do not lead me to a different conclusion.

The statutory [name] (BNG) condition applies to the permission under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Whilst it could be difficult for BNG to be provided within the site, although the baseline value is low, this could be provided off-site through the purchase of credits. This would be outlined in a subsequent Biodiversity Gain Plan to be submitted to and approved by the Council.

The Council has recommended planning conditions to be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance and amended where necessary in the interests of clarity and to ensure that they comply with the relevant tests and legislation, taking into account the representations of the appellant.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

Conditions requiring ecological enhancements and restricting vegetation clearance at certain times of the year are necessary to protect and enhance biodiversity. I have amended the condition relating to roosting bat and nesting bird provision to include agreement of a timetable for implementation given that the existing building is in use.

Conditions relating to investigations and remediation works relating to past shallow coal mining activity and a signed declaration are required in the interest of the safety of future occupants. I agree with the appellant that the investigations and remediation work should be carried out before work on the extension is commenced. It would be unreasonable to restrict works on the existing building given that it is already in commercial use.

I have imposed a condition relating to external materials which is required to protect the character and appearance of the area. Further, conditions requiring the installation of obscure glazing, restricting the hours of trading and goods vehicles movements and restricting the use to class E(g) are necessary to ensure that the development does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In terms of the latter, this is the use class sought by the appellant and, if not restricted, the building could be used for various uses which may not be appropriate taking into account the site’s location, its existing use and the development plan.

As the permission would be subject to the mandatory BNG condition, an additional condition in respect of this is not necessary in this instance. The Council has also suggested a condition requiring no materials or equipment to be stored on the site outside the building at any time. Given that the site has a long established use, including its external area, it would be unreasonable to restrict the proposal in this way.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan (scale: 1:1250); Site Plan Proposed (scale 1:100); 6 ([name]); 7 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan); 8 (Proposed First Floor Plan); 9 (Proposed Roof Plan); 10 (Proposed Section); and 11 (Existing and [address] Scene).

No development above ground shall commence until a scheme of ecological enhancements for roosting bats and nesting birds and a timetable for implementation has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and, once implemented, shall be retained as such at all times thereafter.

No part of the extension hereby approved shall commence until: a) a scheme of intrusive investigations has been carried out on site to establish the risks posed to the development by past shallow coal mining activity; and b) any remediation works and/or mitigation measures to address land instability arising from coal mining legacy, as may be necessary, have been implemented on site in full in order to ensure that the site is made safe and stable for the development proposed. The intrusive site investigations and remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with authoritative UK guidance.

Prior to the first use of the extension, a signed statement or declaration prepared by a suitably competent person confirming that the site is, or has been made, safe and stable for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This document shall confirm the methods and findings of the intrusive site investigations and the completion of any remedial works and/or mitigation necessary to address the risks posed by past coal mining activity.

No vegetation clearance shall occur between 1 March and 31 August in any year unless a bird nesting survey has been carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist immediately prior to clearance and written confirmation provided that no active bird nests are present, and the survey and written confirmation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the elevations and roofs of the development hereby permitted, as indicated on the approved plans, shall be similar in colour, size, form and texture to those on the existing building.

The dormer windows in the north elevation of the building shall be fitted with obscure glazing only, to a minimum of level 3 on the [name] (where 1 is the lowest and 5 the greatest level of obscurity) and shall be non-opening. These shall be retained as such at all times thereafter.

The use hereby permitted shall only be open for trade or business between the following hours and not at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays: 0800 - 2000 Monday to Friday 0800 - 1600 Saturday

Loading/unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles (including forklift trucks) on the site shall only take place between the following hours and not at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays: 0800 - 2000 Monday to Friday 0800 - 1600 Saturday

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) the building shall be used for Class E(g) uses only, and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.