Appeal 6002514

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development in the above banner heading has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as this concisely describes the proposed development.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing occupiers of No. [address] (No. 256a) with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site relates to an ancillary outbuilding to the rear of No. [site address] (No. 256). The outbuilding can either be accessed via the dwelling along the rear garden area or via the shared private access track which is located to the side of the property. There is an existing residential property (No. 256a) located to the east of the outbuilding which is set back from [address] and is also accessed via the private track. It has outlook onto the detached garage in relatively close quarters.

The proposed development seeks planning permission to change the use of the ancillary outbuilding to a self-contained storage unit along with a 1.8 metre high fence which would separate and divide the building from No. 256.

The appeal site sits within a residential area and a condition attached to the building in question specifically required the building to be for ancillary storage for the enjoyment of the dwelling house and shall not be used, sold or otherwise disposed of as a separate dwelling nor used for commercial activity. The condition explains that the Council would wish to give further consideration to the establishment of a separate dwelling or used for commercial activity, in the interests of amenity and for the avoidance of doubt.

The proposed use being B8 would be a non-conforming use within a primary residential area even considering that there is no new floor space or plant/equipment associated with the proposals. This is because it is a materially different use to that of a residential use including outbuildings such as the one at the appeal site which are used for ancillary purposes associated with a residential property. A B8 use has the potential to intensify the use at the site including more comings and goings, general activity etc.

Although a condition could be imposed to restrict a permission to just storage as well as restricting opening hours, it would not be reasonable nor enforceable to restrict the comings and goings that might be increased because of the B8 use. It would also not be reasonable nor enforceable to restrict the type of vehicles used such as those of a larger nature or even loading and unloading activities associated with a commercial use. A B8 use would not assimilate appropriately within the residential character of the area because of its associated activities.

An increase in comings and goings for a commercial use would generate more disturbances to the detriment of neighbouring residents. As set out, No. 256a is located to the direct east of the garage and both the outbuilding and No. 256a would use the same access track leading to and from [address]. The close proximity of the dwelling and the proposed B8 use would undoubtedly increase the risk of disturbances not only by virtue of the increased comings and goings but also when loading and unloading goods. Any larger vehicles would also have to turn and manoeuvre directly in front of the dwelling.

I acknowledge the highways consultee comments regarding the proposed use being unlikely to generate a significant number of vehicle movements. However, the proposed use still has the potential to increase the noise and disturbance levels in relation to vehicle generation, loading/unloading, size of vehicles etc which could not be adequately managed via the imposition of planning conditions. The B8 use would create the potential for more trips, than its current ancillary use and must be carefully considered in this specific context. I have considered the size and scale of the building and the proposed use taking place inside the building for storage purposes, but this would not alter my findings as the proposals would still allow for an intensification of the use over and above that of the existing. This has the potential to be harmful to the amenities of No. 256a. The appellant compares the activities to those of typical domestic delivery patterns but as the use is not one of a domestic nature, I am not sufficiently persuaded that this would be the case, nor can it be adequately managed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of existing occupiers of No. 256a with particular regard to noise and disturbance. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS03 of the [name], 2014 (CS) and saved Policy PS10 of the Local Plan, 2006 which together, amongst other matters, requires development to respond positively to the surroundings and provide residents with a quality living environment. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary to paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to achieving well designed places.

Policy CS03 of the CS does not restrict specific use classes but it does require development to respond positively to the surroundings, be appropriate to the local setting and context. For the above reasons, I find the scheme to fail in this regard.

I am aware of the personal circumstances of the family and need to relocate. I also appreciate that the garage provides vital storage space. Such matters would not however alter my findings in relation to the above main issue nor justify harmful development. A lack of objection from neighbours also does not mean that the development would not be harmful.

The appellant claims that the garage would provide benefits including those relating to economic, social and environmental. Even so, the extent to which these would be beneficial is limited by the small-scale nature of the proposal and would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified.

The matters not in dispute would not weigh in favour of the appeal but would rather be a neutral factor in my overall decision.

In considering this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, in particular the need to eliminate discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of age and/or disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. Following careful consideration of the family circumstances, I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing the appeal is proportionate and necessary.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, either individually or in combination that would outweigh the identified harm and associated plan conflict. I conclude that the appeal is therefore dismissed.