Appeal 6002793

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed words not in relation to acts of development from the description of development contained within the banner heading above for clarity.

The application form states that the appeal scheme began in June 2021 however has not been completed. Consequently, given that it has not been completed I have determined the appeal as shown on the plans and evidence before me, as did the Council.

In the evidence before me there is reference to the emerging Milton Keynes City Plan. However, given its stage, I have determined this appeal with reference to policies from the existing adopted development plan.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the appeal scheme with particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and • the effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site forms part of [address] and the appeal building is divided into two units with separate entrances (Units 1 and 2). Both entrances can be accessed from [site address] Road which is a single-track lane ( [site address] ). To the front of Units 1 and 2 there is a relatively large concrete slab that adjoins the public highway. There are passing places and wide verges along the lane. The barns have a relatively extensive planning history and have generally been used for motor vehicle storage and repair since around 1999.

The appeal scheme would allow for Unit 1 and Unit 2 to be used for any industrial process which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit (Use Class E(g)(iii) of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 as amended (UCO)). Additionally, it would also allow for Unit 2 to be used for storage or as a distribution centre (Use Class B8 of the UCO).

I am mindful of previous applications on the appeal site and in particular a prior approval application1 and multiple subsequent change of use applications2. An additional change of use application3 was also submitted however this was later withdrawn.

Based on the evidence before me, the appeal site has been used to store motor vehicles including the use of Unit 1 for the storage and maintenance of one tractor unit. A joiner/woodworker business has occupied Unit 2 since around 2022 whilst prior to this, it was used for the storage and repair of a motor home.

Given that the appeal site is located beyond any settlement boundary it is classed as being within the open countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy DS5 of the Plan:MK 2016-2031 (the PMK) outlines that planning permission within the open countryside will only be granted for development which, amongst other things, is essential for agriculture, forestry, countryside recreation, highway infrastructure or other development, which is wholly appropriate to a rural area and cannot be located within a settlement, or where other policies within the PMK indicate development would be appropriate.

The Council acknowledges that it does not have concerns regarding parking provision in isolation but rather the suitability and safety of the lane given the proposed development’s scale and type of activity as well as the absence of safe access by sustainable modes of transport.

Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all future scenarios.

The appeal site is approximately 325m along [site address] and there are three passing places from [address] to the appeal barns. I acknowledge the location of the passing places and that a section of the lane is straight for approximately 164m and benefits from two passing places in this distance. There is another straight section of the lane after the bend to the appeal site. Nevertheless, the appellant confirms that these passing places are not designed to full highways standards. [site address] is, in my planning judgement, narrow with informal passing places which are of poor condition and thus unsuitable to safely accommodate HGV vehicles that are likely to be operated in association with the proposed uses. 1 Application Reference: 20/02716/PANAGF 2 Application Reference: 23/00004/FUL, 24/00277/COU. 3 Application Reference: PLN/2024/2057

Whilst there is a swept path analysis before me, to my mind, it demonstrates the narrow character of the lane and thus that [site address] provides unsuitable access for the appeal scheme. I do however acknowledge that there are relatively few personal injury collisions close to the appeal site and that the average speed of cars on [site address] tends to be below 40mph.

Additionally, in the evidence before me, the [name] dated 2025 refers to the anticipated vehicle movements associated with the appeal scheme to be around 15. This is based upon employees travelling to and from the site each day generating around 10 two-way vehicle movements as well as a small number of additional trips for servicing and deliveries or business-related trips.

[name] am mindful of the data contained within the [name] including the TRICS output (approximately 12 two-way trips throughout the day), the sample of the TRICS output included sites located within edge of town locations due to the limited number of small, rural industrial unit sites. I therefore cannot be certain that they and thus the conclusions of the TRICS trip rate are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme.

I am mindful of the retrospective nature of the appeal scheme and consequently, that the surveys conducted are therefore representative given the uses are existing. Nevertheless, given that there is no adequate ‘without development’ baseline, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the existing uses have not resulted in an intensification. Furthermore, that it is possible in the future should there be a change of tenancy, a higher number of vehicle trips could be generated although they would likely be constrained by the building type.

Moreover, the appellant refers to the appeal scheme providing flexible space for two existing businesses, one of which is described as a car mechanic in Unit 1. Additionally, it is highlighted that a successful consent would continue to provide much needed space for the current small businesses, and continue the current employment opportunities

I also note reference in the [name] to the passing places on [site address] as adequate. However, as I have identified above, the passing places are informal and inadequate.

Consequently, given all of the above and on the balance of probabilities, there remains limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that vehicles would be unlikely to pass each other and use substandard passing places because of the appeal scheme. Accordingly, it has also not been adequately demonstrated that the appeal scheme would not result in a severe highways impact when both the physical constraints of [site address] and the proposed uses are assessed in conjunction with one another.

Nevertheless, even if I was to consider that the appeal scheme would not result in a severe highways impact, as indicated in paragraph 116 of the Framework development should be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. I have identified above the substandard, informal passing places and given the proposed uses, the appeal scheme would have an unacceptable impact of the appeal scheme on highway safety.

I acknowledge that vehicles associated with an agricultural use could result in a significant number of movements. However, this is to be expected in a rural area. The appeal scheme would result in a more general industrial and storage use and thus the traffic generation associated with the uses, to my mind, would likely increase the degree of activity surrounding the site. Therefore, the fallback position which would revert the appeal buildings to an agricultural use, whilst there is, to my mind a real prospect of its fruition, it would result in less harm than the appeal scheme before me. Thus, it does not justify the proposal.

Moreover, there is limited streetlighting or pedestrian footpaths on [site address] . The closest bus stop is approximately 1.26km from the appeal site, there is an hourly bus route between the bus stop and [name], and a footpath located to the north of the appeal site onto the [address] where there is an existing pavement.

Nevertheless, even if the shortcut referenced in the evidence before me were to be used by employees for example, given the limited streetlighting and distance to the bus stop, in my planning judgement, it is likely that many of the trips associated with the appeal scheme would be dependent upon private motor vehicles.

The addition of electric vehicle chargers would also contribute to the overall aim of sustainable development, however given the scale of the appeal scheme this would be modest.

I am mindful of paragraph 110 and 89 of the Framework which state that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that planning decisions that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport respectively. The latter also outlines that it is important to ensure that, amongst other things, the development should not have an unacceptable impact on local roads.

Additionally, I am cognisant of the Milton Keynes County Council Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan in which the appeal site appears to be a 30-minute cycling distance from key locations over the City.

Policy ER8 of the PMK provides support for rural employment and the re-use of rural buildings including, amongst other things, farm buildings. It does however outline that they should be appropriate in scale for their location. Whilst the appeal scheme would re-use a rural building, considering all of the above regarding vehicle movements, I am not satisfied that the appeal scheme would be appropriate in scale for its location, especially given the narrow width and informal passing places of [site address] .

Thus, based on the evidence before me and considering all of the above, there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that the appeal scheme would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety due to an intensification of a commercial use served by a narrow lane with inadequate passing places.

Additionally, the appellant refers to a dog kennels situated adjacent to the appeal site, a light industrial unit at [address], a B1 Use Class at [name] as well as a small number of dwellings and working farms in the surrounding area.

I do not have the full circumstances of these before me and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable with the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and for the reasons given above including the site-specific context, they do not lead me to a different

Consequently, based on the evidence before me, the appeal site is not a suitable location and the proposed scheme would result in harm to highway safety. It would therefore conflict with Policies CT2 and CT3 of the PMK as well as Policy T1 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2021 to 2036. [name] seek, amongst other things, to ensure that developments do not compromise highway safety as well as enable people to access employment by walking and cycling.

The appeal scheme would accord with Policies CT10 and CT6 of the PMK insofar as they relate to parking provision and the provision of electric charging points. However, this does not alter my overall conclusion on this main issue.

Policy ER8 of the PMK provides support for rural employment and the re-use of rural buildings including, amongst other things, farm buildings. Whilst the appeal scheme would re-use a rural building, the Policy also states that the proposal should be of an appropriate scale for its location and respect the environmental quality and character of the open countryside.

The change of use would not in itself result in a significant alteration of the existing appeal buildings. Nevertheless, the associated works such as ground levelling, the creation of a formal parking and turning area as well as the widening of the access would result in a level of change from the existing overall appearance of the appeal site.

The appeal scheme would result in the removal of a part of an existing hedgerow to facilitate the access widening, however the appellant would provide mitigation through the new native hedge planting around the parking area. [name] note this planting would likely not provide the same level of screening in the winter months when compared to summer months, it would on balance still provide adequate screening.

I note interested parties’ concerns regarding the view of the appeal site, particularly from the east. However, the proposed hardstanding would result in an increase of approximately 14% and thus would not to my mind result in an unacceptably large hardstanding area. This is especially the case given there are trees located adjacent to the appeal site which offer further screening as well as the existing backdrop of Units 1 and 2.

Furthermore, the proposed opening for the new car parking provision would be set back from [site address] and replace an existing fence. Consequently, it would, to my mind, be viewed in relation to Units 1 and 2.

Thus, considering all of the above, whilst there would be limited views of the proposed parking area it would not, to my mind, result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area which is enjoyed by horse riders, cyclists and walkers.

There is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal scheme would lead to an overflowing parking area which in turn would result in harm to character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Given the proposed uses, the parking of HGV’s would likely result in a change of the character of the appeal site. However, this would likely be temporary for deliveries. Therefore, on balance, this would also not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Considering all of the above, the appeal scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to the general rural character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with Policies D1, D2, NE5, DS5 and Policy ER8 of the PMK insofar as they seek to ensure that development proposals including those in the open countryside are high quality and respond appropriately to their surrounding contexts including landscape character.

The appeal scheme would provide employment opportunities, support local businesses and safeguard existing jobs. Additionally, the appellant refers to an improvement to the existing surface water drainage system (SWDS) as well as an improvement in biodiversity. However, the scale of these benefits would be modest given the size of the appeal scheme.

I am aware that the site is approximately 420 metres from a Scheduled Ancient Monument known as ‘Moated Site Immediately South of [address]’4 (the SAM). It is a medieval moated site and includes a trapezoidal island. A 17th Century stone house, which stood on the island until its demolition in 1935, may have represented a successor to [address] which is thought to have occupied the site from the late 12th Century. I have had regard to the national importance of the SAM and based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that no harm to its significance would arise from the appeal scheme given its scale and distance from the SAM. I also note the Council has not highlighted concerns regarding the proposed development and the SAM.

Approximately, 430 metres from the appeal site is the [name] listed building known as Broadmead5. The special interest and significance of Broadmead is derived in part from its architectural interest. It dates to approximately the 17th Century and is timber framed, rendered to the sides and rear and has brick refronting, amongst other things. Given the distance between the appeal site and Broadmead, in my judgement, the appeal proposal would preserve the setting of Broadmead, the significance of which would not be harmed.

A lack of harm in respect of both the SAM and [name] listed Broadmead does not alter my overall conclusions.

Based on the evidence before me, the appeal site is within an amber impact area for great crested newts. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons no further consideration regarding this matter is required. 4 [name]: 1016703 5 [name]: 1213039

As set out above, I have found that the appeal scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. However, it remains that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the appeal site is in a suitable location and thus that it would not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety.

Whilst the proposed development would reuse a rural building and provide employment opportunities and support small local businesses (albeit limited due to the scale of the appeal scheme) as well as improve the existing SWDS and biodiversity, these do not outweigh the harm I have identified regarding the location and highway safety.

Accordingly, there are no material considerations of such weight or significance to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole 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.