Appeal 6002498

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the application form. However as ‘Retrospective full planning application’ is not an act of development, I have removed this element.

This appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. The application is therefore retrospective, and I have considered the submission accordingly.

The Council’s decision notice refers to Policy E17 of the Truro and Kenwyn Neighbourhood Development Plan 2023 (NP). However, no such Policy appears within the NP. Nevertheless, the NP does contain Policy EJ7 which seeks to safeguard employment land, which the body of the Council’s Officer Report, and both the appellant and Council appeal submissions refer to. I have therefore also considered NP Policy EJ7 in my assessment.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the development with regard to the local spatial strategy and character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] , [name] and residents on [address] and [address], with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The Council’s approach to the location of new development is set out in the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP), with LP Policy 1 supporting sustainable development. LP Policy 2 sets out the spatial strategy and a sustainable approach to accommodating growth, seeking to provide a well-balanced mix of economic, social and environmental benefits, whilst respecting and enhancing quality of place.

LP Policy 5 provides a more specific framework for business development. Although close to Truro, there is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site is within the countryside for planning purposes, and I see no reason to disagree. LP Policy 5 requires developments in the countryside to be of a suitable scale appropriate to its location or to demonstrate an overriding locational and business need to be in that location; or be an extension to an existing business where re-location would be impractical or not viable.

There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the use applied for requires a countryside location. However, the appellant contends that there are no alternative premises within the local area that provide the same combination of scale, configuration, cost and operational suitability as the appeal site.

In this regard, the appellant’s Availability of Land and Building for [name] Report1 (ALBPHU) seeks to establish whether adequate alternative sites exist for the use within a 10-12 mile radius of Truro. The report concludes that there are no suitable alternative premises available.

In doing so, five relevant sites were identified on the commercial property market (as of October 2025), each of which have been discounted for various reasons. Whilst some of the sites are clearly not suitable due to matters such as being enclosed with no external capacity for plant storage, a site at [name] site was excluded due to being restricted by estate layout and lease terms and higher rental level. A further site at Walkers Business Park was also excluded due to a combination of limited yard sizes, security fencing, and use restrictions preventing it from accommodating a large-scale plant-hire operation.

However, I visited both [name] and Walkers Business Park at the time of my site visit. In respect of [name], whilst internal roads are rather narrow and shared with other commercial enterprises, I am unconvinced that this would result in significant operational difficulties, particularly given the relatively low number of vehicle movements associated with the proposal as outlined elsewhere in the appellants appeal Noise Assessment2 (NA). Moreover, I have no evidence of what the stated lease ‘restrictions’ are, and indeed if they would reduce the suitability, or indeed if the advertised rent is beyond market level.

In respect of Walkers Business Park, whilst of a smaller yard area than the appeal site, I am again unconvinced that, given the type and quantum of vehicles referred to within the NA, the site would not be suitable. Indeed, at my visit I observed larger vehicles parked within yards at the Estate. 1 Charterwood Commercial Property Consultants Ltd, Ref: RJB/SAS/4825 2 Inacoustic, Ref: 25-339

Directing businesses to existing empty commercial premises would help ensure active use of, and thus safeguard existing employment land. I accept the appeal site may provide a lower cost alternative and would have some operational advantages as outlined in the ALBPHU, including nearby cycle and pedestrian routes which could allow employees sustainable transport opportunities to reach the site. Nonetheless, the substantive evidence before me is not sufficient to conclude that no alternative premises are available within the local area that would be suitable for the business, and thus also safeguard existing employment land.

In addition, LP Policy 23 seeks to ensure that development sustains local distinctiveness and character and protect and where possible enhance Cornwall’s natural environment. The proposal has introduced an intensive commercial activity into the countryside landscape, which I observed has an intrinsic openness and rural character despite its proximity to Truro.

Agricultural buildings, yards and agricultural activities are commonplace within the countryside. However, the commercial use of the site has resulted in a stark and more industrial appearance, due to a combination of the relatively large number of cars utilising the car park, the storage of aggregate, building materials, as well as plant and machinery, and associated movements which are out of context with the rural landscape. Overall, I observed the use to be visually more intensive and incongruous than what would ordinarily be expected from farm buildings and yards of the scale of the appeal site.

Moreover, visibility splays are required at the highway access, a lay-by on the access lane, and mitigation in relation to noise, with the erection of a 4m tall and 30m wide acoustic barrier. Planting is proposed which would incorporate native hedge species and tree planting and could be secured via planning condition. Although this would help to soften the appearance and in certain longer views screen the appeal site, an erosion of the rural character of the area would still be evident. This would result in a modest level of harm to the character and appearance.

In summary, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding locational and business need to be in the location of the appeal site, and more so, given the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area, is not of a scale appropriate to its location.

In conclusion, the appeal site is not a suitable location for the development with regard to the local spatial strategy and character and appearance of the area. The proposal would be contrary to [name] 1, 2, 5, 23 and NP Policy EJ7, the purposes of which are stated above.

Although within open countryside, the appeal site is in close proximity to the residential dwelling of [site address] , whilst other residential neighbours at [name], [address] and [address] are nearby.

Although a noise assessment3 accompanied the planning application, the NA provided within this appeal sought to further provide a comprehensive review of the noise emissions associated with the current operation of the site, drawing upon 3 ACT Acoustics 23 April 2024 attended and unattended specific, residual and background environmental sound measurements, source measurements, and predictive acoustic modelling undertaken in accordance with, amongst other things, BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 (BS4142).

The findings of the NA state that while most nearby receptors experience a low impact, the nearest receptor at [name] is subject to a higher rating level, primarily due to direct line-of-sight propagation and occasional tonal reversing alarms. As such, the NA suggests a package of mitigation measures including the 4m acoustic barrier referred to in the previous main issue, adoption of broadband reversing alarms and working times, thereby preventing operations during the early-morning sensitive period.

Monitoring for the NA was carried out from midday Thursday 6 November 2025 to 10:00 on Monday 10 November 2025. Such a monitoring period would provide a representation of background levels and representation of operational sound through differing commercial processes including start-up activity and vehicle manoeuvring and yard handling. I have no doubt that the NA provides a reasonable assessment of noise emissions during the monitoring period.

Nevertheless, although BS4142 may not specify a minimum monitoring duration, a reasonably wide range of operations with differing noise emissions could take place at the appeal site under the applied for Use Class. Moreover, it is stated within the evidence that ‘intermittent’ and ‘varied’ vehicle activity takes place. Subsequently, a longer monitoring period would, in my view, provide greater confidence that the NA captured a true representation of operations that are, and are likely to be carried out at the appeal site.

This is especially so given the apparent inconsistencies in relation to the stated scale of operations taking place from the site. The substantive evidence before me includes contradictory references to the operations being either a ‘low-intensity commercial use’ or a ‘large-scale plant-hire operation’ and ‘heavy plant operations’. Furthermore, the application form refers to the operation providing employment for 7 employees, whereas a supporting letter from the current business at the site, [name] (the supporting letter), refers to 40 employees.

As well as the scale of the operation, my attention has also been drawn to scaffold operations taking place at the site, with an [name] relating to a scaffold business being present. [name] did not observe scaffolding at the time of my site visit, this is a snapshot in time, and such operations, with potential differing noise emissions, could take place under the applied for Use Class. The author of the NA has confirmed that due to no such operations taking place during the monitoring period, scaffold operations have not been assessed as part of the NA. Taken as a whole, I can only afford modest weight to the findings of the NA.

Nonetheless, at my site visit, whilst traffic along the [address] was audible, it did not have a strong influence on the appeal site and surrounding area, which, when operations were not taking place appeared relatively tranquil. Given the spatial relationship of the appeal site to neighbouring properties, particularly [site address] , and the commercial operations that are taking place, I find that the use is likely to result in notable noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers.

Moreover, even if I were to accept the appellant’s own data identifying a +12 dB increase at the neighbouring property was a robust assessment taking into account the scale, and all operations at the site, such an increase would require mitigation. In this instance, whilst some of the proposed mitigation measures within the NA could be achieved through planning conditions, I have found in the Main Issue above, that an acoustic barrier would also result in some harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Finally, the existing use of the site is agricultural. Although agricultural operations at the appeal site would also result in associated noise and disturbance this is unlikely to be of similar intensity to that generated by the proposal, particularly given the number of employees associated with the development. Indeed, whilst I am aware of noise complaints from neighbouring occupiers to the Council in relation to the appeal development, I have not been made aware of any such similar complaints when the appeal site was in an agricultural use. Therefore, I find it unlikely that the development would result in noise or disturbance of a similar character to that associated with an agricultural use of the site.

Consequently, for the above reasons I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development would protect the living conditions of the occupants of [site address] , [name] and residents on [address] and [address], with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The development is contrary to [name] 1 and 12 which seek, amongst other things, to protect individuals and property from unreasonable noise and disturbance.

I have no doubt that the appeal site provides a cost-efficient premises of a suitable scale to accommodate the business needs of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant’s appeal statement and supporting letter states that the business employs 40 people. As such the development results in a benefit to both the local economy and socially through the employment of local people.

[name] am very mindful of the importance of employment to the local area, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there is an overriding locational and business need to be in the location of the appeal site, or that suitable alternative premises are not available which would result in similar employment benefits and also safeguard existing employment land.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations, individually or cumulatively, outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.