Appeal 6002524

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published for consultation during the course of this appeal. Having regard to its content and the nature of the disputed matters, I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise to either party by issuing this decision without seeking comments.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal is in a suitable location for such a use, in accordance with the [name]; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbours with particular regards to noise and disturbance.

No [site address] (No 522) is an end of terrace dwelling located on the corner of [address] and [address]. The existing garage accessed from No 522’s [address] elevation was formerly used as a shop but now forms part of the dwelling. The proposal is to change the use of this garage to a retail unit which would be used for the sale of natural pet food and supplements.

There is no dispute between the parties that No 522 is in an out-of-centre location. It is around 1km from Westhoughton which is identified in [name] (2011) (CS) as a ‘Local Town Centre.’ To support the vitality of town centres, paragraph 91 of the Framework requires that local planning authorities apply a [name] to planning applications for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up-to-date plan. Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out-of-centre sites be considered.

The Planning Practice Guidance1 (PPG) further advises that it is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the [name], and failure to undertake a sequential assessment could in itself constitute a reason for refusing permission. The appellant has submitted a sequential assessment, and the Council has had an opportunity to comment on this during the appeal process. The assessment considers three vacant, available retail units2 which all appear to form part of an existing retail frontage or parade of shops. They are described by the appellant as being on the ‘high street’ and in ‘Bolton Town Centre/Edge of Centre.’

The appellant has discounted the units on the basis that they ‘appear to be quite expensive,’ advertised as ranging between £600 and £800 in rent per calendar month. However, whilst I note the units are significantly larger in size than the garage of No 522, I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate why this rental level would render them an unviable proposition for a pet food business. The unit on [address] is also assessed by the appellant as in a ‘bad location.’ However, it is unclear from the evidence why this is the case, particularly given the marketing information describes it as being a ‘high traffic location with excellent visibility.’ Such a location, particularly in an existing parade of shops, could reasonably be expected to generate footfall and business for a retail use.

[name] am mindful of the advice in the PPG that the application of the [name] will need to be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal, I am not satisfied that the sequential assessment that has been undertaken is sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the proposal is in a suitable location and that there are no sequentially preferrable locations. In circumstances where an application fails to satisfy the [name], paragraph 95 of the Framework states that it should be refused.

In addition to the conflict with the Framework, the proposal would conflict with CS Policy P2 and Policy JP-P4 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) (PfE). Together, these direct retail development, including those serving local communities, to designated town, district and local centres.

The proposed retail unit is small (only around 16m2) and would sell pet food which the appellant asserts would serve the local community, focusing on dog walkers and other customers arriving on foot. As the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and is said by the appellant to be close to popular dog walking routes, it is reasonable to assume that a proportion of customers would visit by foot.

However, although I have been provided with little information regarding the nature of goods that would be sold, pet food can be bulky or purchased in bulk. As such, a proportion of customers would also arrive by car. The appellant further states 1 Paragraph: 011 [name]: 2b-[phone] [address] (Right unit); [address], Horwich; and Unit 12, [address], [address]. that a local delivery service would be provided, as well as a ‘click-and-collect’ option for online sales. Both would have associated vehicle movements.

On my mid-morning site visit, I observed [address] to be busy with cars parked either side of the road, including partially on the pavements. Given this, even if advised to park near to the church or park, customers are most likely to park on [address] to the front of the retail unit or close to the garages to the rear. [address] is a relatively narrow back-street and I observed it to be busy, including with comings and goings associated with the shop on the opposite corner of [address]. An increase in vehicle movements and manoeuvring associated with the proposed use, including idling engines or doors slamming, would result in some noise and disturbance. This would be most keenly felt by the residents of the flats above [address] which have rear facing windows.

However, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has suggested a condition be imposed that the retail unit should not open other than 10:00-18:00 Mondays to Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or [name]. A further condition was suggested to ensure that the retail unit was operated only by a person (or persons) residing at [address]. Although some residents may be sleeping or working at home during the day, such conditions would ensure the increased activity would not extend to the quieter times of the day, when neighbours should reasonably expect a lower level of noise and disturbance.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbours, with particular regards to noise and disturbance. Consequently, it would not conflict with CS Policy CG4 which seeks to ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses and occupiers, protects amenity and would not generate unacceptable noise.

It is evident from the petition submitted by the appellant that there is significant community support for a small pet food shop in the area. There would also be benefits associated with the donations the business would make to local animal shelters. However, these benefits do not outweigh the need to support the vitality of town centres and the role they play at the heart of local communities. The absence of an appeal statement from the Council or objections from interested parties does not alter my conclusion on the first main issue above.

The proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours. However, it has not been shown that it is a suitable location for such a use, in accordance with the [name]. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.