Appeal 6003069

The appeal is allowed in respect of Condition 5 insofar as it relates to Option 1 (French drain) shown on drawing no 0264 25 only.

The appeal is dismissed in respect of Condition 14.

The evidence indicates that the development is retrospective and drainage works have been completed at the site. Nevertheless, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the plan and details before me.

Planning permission was granted in 2024 for the part change of use of an existing agricultural machinery workshop/store and haulage depot to incorporate a containerised self-storage facility, subject to several conditions. This appeal relates to conditions 5 and 15 which require details of a French drain specification and secure access scheme to be submitted. It is understood that these conditions have previously been discharged by the Council in March 2025 (Council ref. CD/25/0257). The application which is the subject of this appeal sought to amend the approved details.

The appellant’s evidence focusses particularly on the reason for the imposition of Condition 14 and draws my attention to the 6 tests of conditions given in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The appellant contends that, in their judgement, Condition 14 was not necessary or reasonable and should not therefore have been attached in that form to the grant of planning permission. However, it is not open for me as part of this appeal to consider the wording of Conditions 5 or 14, the nature of their requirements or the reasons why they were imposed on the planning permission. The appellant could have applied under Sections 73 or 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to have removed or varied the wording of the conditions if they considered that the conditions as imposed fail to meet with the tests set out in the Framework and PPG.

Irrespective of whether the application submitted was on the advice of the Council’s officers or not, in this appeal I can only determine whether the details submitted, as refused by the Council, are acceptable or otherwise, thereby discharging the conditions in question or not. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Accordingly, the main issues in this appeal are whether the submitted details: • would provide an adequate means for surface water disposal which is consistent with the terms and would satisfy the requirements of Condition 5; and • would provide a suitable [name] which is consistent with the terms and would satisfy the requirements of Condition 14.

Condition 5 required details of a French drain, including a timeframe for completion and construction specification, to be submitted to and approved by the Council. The reason given for this condition was to avoid an excessive amount of surface water discharge into surrounding areas, in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the North Norfolk Local Development Framework [name] (2008) (the [name]). The information on plan ref. 0264 25 puts forward two options to satisfy this condition.

Option 1 proposes a French drain. Annotations on the plan state “the French drain is not continuous so as to keep it clear of the [fence] posts for stability purposes. Designed in accordance with percolation and filtration testing”. The Council confirms that the intermittent French drain shown on the plan would be acceptable and would sufficiently manage excess surface water which satisfies the requirements of this condition. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

Option 2 proposes a gravel board bund. Annotations on the plan state “to provide a bund wall up against the fence gravel board to keep any surface water away from the fence to filtrate through the existing permeable ground”. Irrespective of whether this would be an adequate drainage solution for the site or not, by proposing a drainage scheme that is not a French drain, the details are not consistent with the terms of Condition 5, which cannot be amended through this submission to discharge the condition. The Council’s decision to refuse the submitted details for Option 2 was therefore well founded.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that Option 1 would provide adequate means for surface water disposal which is consistent with the terms and would satisfy the requirements of Condition 5. Option 1 therefore complies with Policy EN 13 of the [name] insofar as it seeks to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on surface and groundwater quality or the natural environment as a result of development proposals. However, Option 2 would not provide an adequate means for surface water disposal that is consistent with the terms or would satisfy the requirements of Condition 5 and would therefore conflict with the abovementioned policy and its aims. Condition 14 – [name]

Condition 14 required a [name] (SAS), which sets out details of measures to control access to the storage containers, to be submitted to and approved by the Council. The condition states the SAS shall specify: a) The method of managing access to containers so as to accord with the requirements of Condition 4; b) The proposed height, design, external colour and precise location of any fencing to be installed; c) Any proposed earthworks and ground profiling, including proposed finish levels and contours; d) An implementation programme setting out timescales for the completion of the [name]; e) A Secure Access management plan, stating management responsibilities and a schedule of monitoring and maintenance operations to ensure the [name] remains in functional condition whilst the site remains in use.

The reason for imposing this condition was to ensure that the site is secured so as to manage access to the site and reduce noise impacts from proposed storage activities in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the [name].

The information on plan ref. 0264 25 proposes the installation of 8 night vision dome cameras mounted in groups of two and three on 3.5m high poles, designed to monitor the containers and access routes. The Council raises concerns that the installation of cameras alone would not prevent physical access to the site outside of the permitted operating hours. Concerns are also raised in relation to the potential for the cameras to capture images outside of the appeal site boundary. The appellant contends that the cameras would enable positive identification of site users and provide a greater deterrent to persons accessing the site out of hours than a security gate system.

The details before the Council to discharge this condition are limited. No management plan was provided detailing the site management responsibilities, nor was a schedule of monitoring and maintenance operations provided to ensure the SAS remains in a functional condition. A camera system as put forward would enable the appellant to identify persons using the site. However, they would not physically prohibit or manage access into the site outside of the operating hours specified by Condition 4. No details of any fencing or gates have been provided on the plan before me and therefore it seems that the appellant is relying on site users to comply with the operating hours without any physical method of control.

It is not clear to me how the installation of cameras alone would ensure the site is secured and access is managed within the requirements of Condition 4. Nor is there sufficient information before me which details the management responsibilities of the site, how the SAS would be monitored and maintained to ensure its effectiveness or what measures would be taken if the requirements of Condition 4 were breached. I note the appellant’s contention that gates would not necessarily prevent access to the storage units. However, they are likely to be a greater deterrent than no gates or physical barriers at all. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the proposed details would ensure that the site is secured so as to manage access to the site and reduce noise impacts from proposed storage activities in the interests of residential amenity.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the submission does not provide an adequate SAS. The appeal scheme is therefore inconsistent with the terms and would fail to satisfy the requirements of Condition 14. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policy EN 13 of the [name] insofar as it seeks to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on general amenity and that all development proposals minimise noise pollution.

The appellant has referred to examples of other storage facilities within the area which they state have not been required to submit a SAS. However, as set out above, whether or not Condition 14 meets the condition tests set out in the Framework and PPG is outside of the scope of this appeal and therefore has not influenced my

The appellant has also made reference to the Council’s handling of the application and past applications on the site. However, in determining this appeal I have had regard to the planning merits of the case only.

For the reasons given above, Option 1 (the French drain) shown on drawing no 0264 25 would meet the requirements of Condition 5. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed in respect of Condition 5, insofar as it relates to Option 1 only.

Option 2 for Condition 5 has been found to be unacceptable and is not approved.

I have also found that the information submitted fails to meet the requirements of Condition 14. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed in respect of Condition 14.