Appeal 6002982

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the location of the development; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including on the green gap; and • whether the development adequately secures a biodiversity net gain.

Policy SP4 of the Canterbury District Local Plan (2017) (CDLP), sets out that the principal focus of development is the urban areas of Canterbury, [name] and Whitstable. The appeal site falls outside of the urban area of Whitstable and is therefore situated within the countryside. As the development would be situated outside the urban area of Whitstable, it would conflict with Policy SP4 of the CDLP. This policy sets out the evidence based strategy and plan-led approach to the distribution of development within the district.

Policy EMP1 of the CDLP defines the sites allocated for employment development. The appeal site is not an allocated site. However, this policy does not specifically preclude other unallocated employment developments coming forward at other sites. As such, the proposal would not directly conflict with this policy.

Policy EMP4 allows for the expansion of existing employment premises, subject to a number of criteria including whether there would be a significant effect on amenity and the landscape. The proposal would conflict with this policy, in relation to matters of character and appearance for the reasons as discussed later in my

Policy EMP14, relating to rural businesses is referred to in the Council’s decision notice. However, the parties agree the proposal does not relate to a rural business. This policy is therefore not relevant to the appeal scheme.

The Council has also referred to Policy SP1 of the CDLP in its associated reason for refusal, which relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework. I consider this later on in my decision.

As described above, the appeal site is situated outside of a defined settlement boundary and is therefore within the countryside. In addition, the site is also situated within a green gap as defined by Policy OS6 of the CDLP.

In addition, Policy OS6 sets out that proposals will be permitted within green gaps where they do not a) significantly affect the open character of the green gap or lead to coalescence between existing settlements; b) not result in isolated or obtrusive development within the gap.

Specifically, in relation to the green gap between [name] and Whitstable which the appeal site falls within, Policy OS7 sets out development will be permitted where it does not a) result in a material expansion of the built up confines of the urban areas of [name] or Whitstable, or, b) not significantly affect the open character or separating function of the green gap, and c) not result in new isolated development within the green gap.

Furthermore, Policy DBE3 seeks to protect, promote and enhance the distinctive character, diversity and quality of the district through high quality, sustainable inclusive design, which reinforces and positively contributes to its local context creating attractive, inspiring and safe places.

[address] runs between Whitstable and [name]. It is broadly undeveloped either side of the road between these settlements, with the land mostly comprising green fields contributing to an open and verdant character and appearance between the settlements and a notable absence of regular built form fronting onto the road.

There are, however, some notable elements of development near the appeal site, predominantly situated in a cluster around the roundabout connecting [address] with [address] and [address]. This development includes Chestfield Business Park set adjacent to the appeal site, a petrol filling station on the opposite side of the road and a car wash set on the other side of the roundabout. In the case of Chestfield Business Park, this was granted planning permission fairly recently, with the evidence showing only a small section of the site falls within the green gap. Development a greater distance away in the urban area of Whitstable is also perceptible from the site. In addition, set in the green gap to the other side of the appeal site is a garden centre which appears as a separate and singular entity within the gap.

Taking the above into account, the area has an open, semi-rural character and appearance. Whilst the appeal site is enclosed by established hedgerow, its undeveloped presence positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area and open character of the green gap. In addition, the appeal site forms an important area of space separating the adjacent business park and developed area of Whitstable from the garden centre set on its other side within the green gap.

The appeal proposal would visually infill a large portion of the undeveloped area between these elements of built form either side of the site. This would have the effect of bridging the built form either side of the appeal site together forming a visually continuous row of development into the green gap. This would have an obtrusive visual effect of the urban area of Whitstable materially sprawling out into the green gap towards [name], significantly harming the open character and visually undermining the separating function of the gap by increasing visual coalescence when travelling between the settlements. It would also result in the development and urbanisation of an open space which positively contributes to the semi-rural landscape character of the area.

Whilst the development does not propose any permanent buildings and the resulting movements would be limited, the proposed hardstanding, fencing and containers would nevertheless introduce an urban industrial appearance to the site, which would still be notable, even if glimpsed in places through the foliage of the retained boundary hedge and through the access.

The appellant has suggested that owing to the nature of the proposal with no permanent buildings, the land could be restored to its current condition after 25 years, similar to a nearby solar farm granted permission by the Council. However, this specific proposal requires a considerable amount of gravel, ‘grasscrete’ and permanent fencing to be installed at the site and I have no evidence demonstrating how the site could be restored to its pre-development state. In addition, the evidence before me shows that in granting permission for this solar farm, the Council in this case did not consider the open character of the gap would be unacceptably harmed by this solar farm development for the duration of its operational lifetime. This is distinctly different to the appeal scheme where I have identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the green gap. Therefore, I cannot be certain that the land could be restored, and, in any case, harm would still arise during the operational phase of the development.

The appellant contends that if one criterion of Policies OS6 and OS7 is met of each policy then the proposal is policy compliant and there is no need to consider the other criterion. However, when read in their proper context, it is clear that within each policy these criteria work together as a collective in order to ensure that development permitted within the green gap does not undermine the various elements for its designation. The criteria are not independent distinct elements that would mean compliance with one means the others should be ignored.

The proposal would therefore result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the [name] and Whitstable green gap. It would significantly affect the open character of the green gap and lead to a material expansion of and coalescence between existing settlements. It would therefore conflict with Policies DBE3, OS6 and OS7 of the CDLP. In addition, by virtue of this harm to the character and appearance of the area the proposal would not meet criterion (b) of Policy EMP4 and therefore would not be an appropriate employment site in this regard.

The Council’s third reason for refusal relates to a lack of legal agreement securing offsite biodiversity net gain measures. However, the Council has confirmed in its evidence that it is content that a legal agreement is not required should it be confirmed the appellant intends to purchase credits from a formal habitat bank.

The evidence shows that the proposal would result in a 42% onsite BNG loss for habitats, however these habitats are of a low level of distinctiveness and only require less than a single unit to achieve a net gain if purchasing off-site credits. The appellant has confirmed that a detailed BNG scheme secured through a condition would seek to provide on-site enhancements and then utilise credits should the minimum BNG requirement not be capable of being provided on-site.

As the appellant is not proposing any significant on-site, or any off-site enhancements to achieve the required BNG, I am satisfied that a planning obligation is not required, and that the proposal would secure the required biodiversity net gain.

The parties agree that there is a current shortfall of employment land supply within the district. In particular I have been referred to the Draft Canterbury District Local Plan Regulation 18 [name] (2025) which specifies there is currently a shortfall of 36,931m2 of Class B8 land supply with an overall total current net employment land supply shortfall across all use types of 27,931m2. Within this undersupply, the appellant also highlights that a number of existing allocations have not been built out. The site allocations of the CDLP, as set out in Policy EMP1 are not meeting the employment needs of the area. Furthermore, given the early stage of the emerging local plan, a plan led solution is some time away.

In addition, the appellant has provided a list of 69 individuals interested in small-scale commercial or domestic storage space and interest from an established operator to take on the site. The proposal would therefore also support local businesses and individuals.

As such, the evidence shows that there is a sizable undersupply of employment space within the district, and that there is local demand for the development. Therefore, the provision of up to 153 self-storage containers at the site carries considerable weight as a socio-economic benefit.

Allocations contained within the draft local plan situated in the [name] and Whitstable green gap have been brought to my attention1 by the appellant to demonstrate that future development is planned within the gap. However, the evidence before me shows that the draft plan has not yet been submitted for examination. As such, there is much uncertainty over the final form of the policies and allocations. Given the stage of preparation of the plan, I can only afford limited weight to these policies.

A live planning application on the [address] site has also been highlighted by the appellant, which is stated as being for up to 300 dwellings along with other development. However, I have not been presented with any specific details of this 1 Known as [address] allocated for up to 250 dwellings and education provision and Land west of [address] allocated for 150 dwellings. application, including its current status. The existence of these draft allocations and the planning application therefore does not mitigate or otherwise justify the harm that I have identified.

A solar farm and an appeal for a care home2 within the green gap has also been brought to my attention. However, both these schemes are for different types of proposals and are situated within different parts of the green gap. Whilst these schemes demonstrate that development has been granted within the gap, each proposal should be assessed on its individual merits, which I have done so in this case.

Furthermore, if anything, all of these examples highlight the need to ensure proposals are carefully controlled within the green gap and countryside to ensure that they are not undermined.

The appellant considers that the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as expressed in paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged on the basis of the most important policies for determining the proposal are out-of-date. Having regard to my findings on the main issues, I consider that the basket of the most important policies are Policies SP1, SP4, EMP1, EMP4, OS6, OS7 and DBE3 of the CDLP. Paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

In relation to the Policies EMP1, EMP4 and SP4 relating to employment and spatial strategy of development, the parties agree that these policies are out of date on the basis of the under provision of employment land. I see no reason to disagree.

In relation to Policies OS6, OS7 and DBE3, these policies carry considerable consistency with the Framework. In particular paragraph 135 which seeks to ensure developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting whilst also establishing or maintaining a strong sense of place and paragraph 187b which seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. In addition, whilst paragraph 124 of the Framework seeks to make effective use of land, this is to be achieved while also safeguarding and improving the environment. I therefore do not consider these policies to be out of date.

Policy SP1 is broadly consistent with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as expressed in paragraph 11 of the Framework and is therefore also not out of date.

Overall, when taken together, the basket of most important policies for determining the appeal is not out of date. On this basis, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as expressed at paragraph 11d of the Framework does not apply.

In relation to the conflicts with the development plan, owing to the out-of-date nature of the employment policies and spatial strategy the conflict with policies, EMP4 and SP4 would carry limited weight against the proposal, whereas based on the harm identified and the consistency of the policies with the Framework, the 2 PINS ref APP/J2210/W/24/3351458. conflict with Policies OS6, OS7 and DBE3 carries significant weight against the development. The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

In terms of the benefits, I have already highlighted the considerable socio-economic benefits of the proposal. Environmentally, the proposal would be suitably located whereby users of the site would have genuine choice of modes of transport to travel to the site. In addition, it would achieve at least the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain. Given the modest scale of the development this carries limited positive weight. Overall, these benefits would not outweigh the harms that I have identified, and the development would therefore conflict with Policy SP1.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. As such, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.