Appeal 6003460

The appeal is dismissed.

Revised drainage details and strategy1 have been submitted which alters the location of a number of elements of the scheme, such as a fuel storage area, vehicle jetwash system, HGV parking bays, oil bypass separator etc and introduces an employee sitting area. Taken together, these cumulatively constitute a significant and material alteration to the scheme.

The appellant sets out that the changes were made in response to the Council’s concerns, however the appeal process should not be used to evolve scheme, and the proposed amendments are a material alteration to the scheme which has not been the subject of consultation. Therefore, were I to accept them then that may prejudice the interests of interested parties.

Moreover, as set out by the Council, the location of the access on the revised drainage strategy is not consistent with the access shown on the submitted site plan, in addition to the details within the [name] and the General Arrangement and Tracking drawing.

Whilst the appellant has subsequently confirmed that the access location on the revised drainage plans was an error, and a further amended Drainage Concept Layout Plan and a Flood Risk Assessment drawing was submitted at the final comments stage, interested parties would not have the opportunity to comment on the latest drawings submitted at this late stage. Consequently, natural justice would again be prejudiced were I to accept these amended plans and as such, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the drainage scheme originally submitted to and considered by the Council. 1 [name], 1 December 2023, revised 5th January 2026

The main issues in this case are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal having regard to the development plan for the area; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area: • the effect of the proposal on the biodiversity of the site, including the effect of the proposed development on the integrity of the Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC); and • the effect of the proposal on flood risk with particular reference to the drainage strategy.

The appeal site consists of an open undeveloped parcel of land to the south of the settlement of Frome. The site is located outside any defined development limits in the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 (LP) and, as such, is treated as being in the countryside.

LP Policy CP1 sets out the spatial strategy for the Mendip area, and states that development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled but may exceptionally be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Policy CP4. Policy CP4 provides support for business development and growth in line with CP3 to enable the establishment, expansion and diversification of business ‘in a manner and of a scale which is appropriate to the location and constraints upon it.’

With regards to what is ‘appropriate to the location’, the supporting text to Policy CP4 clarifies that the evolution of small enterprises, perhaps based initially in a domestic setting or converted rural buildings into larger businesses may not always be appropriate. ‘This may be because, for example, of the impact of new buildings in the rural setting, or higher levels of traffic generation on unsuitable rural roads.’

LP Policy CP1 (3) does state that ‘Any proposed development outside the development limits, will be strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity...,’ however this is in relation to the first part of the paragraph which refers to ‘the most sustainable locations on the edge of the identified settlements’.

The site is located off a roundabout on the A361/B3090. Whilst a short distance from the settlement of Frome, this highway and this location does not provide a safe location to reach by cycling. There are no pavements or bus stops near the site. As such, safe and convenient access to the site would not be provided by means other than the private car. Whilst the site may be more accessible and involves less travel for staff in Frome than the location of the current premises and would be conveniently located for HGV use, this does not meet the requirements therefore of a sustainable location in this regard and does not meet the circumstances outlined in LP Policy CP1(3).

Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that sites to meet local business 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. However, it goes on to say that in these circumstances, it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings.

As such, the consideration of the impact of the proposal on the rural setting is a key component of whether the development plan supports the proposal in principle, in this location.

The appeal site is currently open, undeveloped, covered in rough grassland and at the time of my visit, used for the grazing of horses, with denser scrub at its southern edge. It is surrounded by agricultural land, and has vegetation around its boundaries of various density and coverage. The site generally slopes up from the highway level and is subsequently very visible from the road. A public footpath runs along the southern boundary of the site.

The surrounding open countryside provides the setting for the settlement of Frome, and the appeal site sits some distance from any built form. The submitted Landscape and [name] Appraisal2 (LVIA) indicates that the site is within the [name] and Vale of Wardour national landscape character area, and specifically set over both the [name] element of the Upper Frome Valley and the [name] – [address] and the Leys element of the [name] Areas.

The key characteristics of these character areas include open farmland with limited woodland/tree cover, irregular small-scale fields on steepest slopes, thin hedge line pattern and unspoilt villages and countryside. Whilst partly contained by the boundary vegetation, the site is visible form the highway and public footpath and its open verdant nature reflect these qualities, albeit modestly, and as such contribute positively to the rural character of the wider area.

The proposal would introduce a substantial two-storey pitched roof building with a hip at one end and a gable at the other located in the centre of the site, with surrounding storage and parking areas. The significant amount of built form would result in the character of the appeal site drastically altering to an industrial/business site, and the contribution the site makes to the rural character of the surroundings would be compromised.

‘Whilst not a ‘monotonous green tin commercial building’, the appeal building would appear as a standard substantial industrial unit, incongruous in this verdant countryside setting. It would appear as an isolated development, incongruously set apart from other built form. Muted colouring or articular external materials would not mitigate for this.

The LVIA concludes that the retention and protection of mature vegetation and additional landscape mitigation measures would in part minimise the landscape and visual effects and influence in the local landscape. Its visual impact would be mitigated to some degree by landscaping, however full details of this are not provided. The lack of landscaping details means that it is not possible to consider 2 [name], June 2021 whether any evergreen planting required for year round screening is suitable and would integrate well visually with the existing landscape. A condition requiring details would not therefore be appropriate. A reliance on screening provided by landscaping to limit visual harm also does not take into account the time required for full growth to provide sufficient screening.

As such, an assessment of its effect and suitability is not possible. Even if landscaping could reduce the visual impact to a minimal level, as indicated by the LVIA, this is based upon requirements such as the ‘retention and protection of mature vegetation’, particularly the existing screening provided by the boundary vegetation. The submitted drainage strategy includes features such as a fuel storage area, washdown area, oil bypass separator, attenuation tank and extensive hard surfacing within the root protection areas of the boundary vegetation.

These details are not represented within the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement3, and it is not demonstrated that they would not lead to harm to or compromise the long term health of the boundary vegetation. This would lead to increased visibility. A condition requiring their protection and retention could comprise the layout of the scheme and would not be appropriate.

Whilst the LVIA refers to mature vegetation restricting wider views and the enclosed nature of the site, it also sets out that a site survey was undertaken in June 2020. I observed that when I visited the site, numerous existing gaps in the boundary vegetation and low level growth allowed distance views from the site and into the site, particularly to the north. This would be exacerbated by any possible future loss of existing screening. Moreover, the LVIA accepts that from areas of the PROW, ‘there will be a change in view with associated medium impacts and moderate adverse effects’.

As set out above, the site is highly visible from the highway, given the sloping site, and there is a PROW running along its southern edge. Even over new roadside planting, as shown on the submitted section drawing on the site plan, the scale of the building would be apparent to passing vehicles on the B3090.

This visual effect would also be exacerbated by lighting on site during later hours. No lighting details have been provided, and the submitted planning statement notes there will occasionally be movements on the site outside normal working hours. Whilst the site is adjacent to a busy main road and roundabout and the eastern and parts of the southern boundary will already be subject to nighttime light spill, additional lighting associated with the development would draw attention, increase its visibility and emphasise the lack of nearby buildings.

The proposed development would therefore be visible in the wider landscape and would detract from the open rural and agrarian visual qualities of the surroundings.

A development site on the opposite side of the B30394 has been recently approved. This is a significant housing scheme and the benefits associated with it in the panning balance is not comparable with the proposal before me. Moreover, it is an extension to the existing settlement, rather than an isolated scheme in the countryside, and given its outline nature, and number of phases, any effect on the 3 By Woodland & Countryside Management Ltd, June 2024 4 Appeal reference APP/E3335/V/25/3360037 appeal site through built form nearby would not be seen in the short or medium term.

I conclude therefore that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would conflict with [name] DP1 and DP7, which collectively require development to be appropriate to and formulated with an appreciation of the built and natural context.

Even if the proposal would not ‘significantly degrade the quality of the local landscape’, LP Policy DP4 does goes on to say that proposals should demonstrate that their siting and design ‘are compatible with the pattern of natural and man-made features of the [name] of their locality.’ The proposal would also therefore conflict with this policy.

Given this conflict, as set out above, I conclude that the appeal site is not suitably located for the proposal having regard to the development plan for the area, and is not supported by [name] CP1 and CP3.

The Council also refer to the poor-quality environment within the site. It is not demonstrated why the current layout would lead to an unacceptable environment in terms of operational design, and there is no demonstrable conflict with LP Policy DP7 in this regard.

The appeal site is located within [name] of the Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European Site as defined by the Habitats Regulations. Consequently, it is necessary for me to consider the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC.

The Mells Valley SAC is important for the [name]. The Conservation Objectives for the SAC is to ensure the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of the [name].

The Council’s ‘Guidance on Development’ that was produced in partnership with Natural England, highlights that landscapes around the SAC are important in providing foraging habitats needed to maintain the favourable conservation status of the [name]. The proposal could lead to a permanent loss of vegetation and potential for loss of habitat and has the potential to impact a feeding and commuting area used by qualifying features of the SAC. A likely significant effect therefore cannot be ruled out. An appropriate assessment is therefore required under the Habitat Regulations 2017 (as amended).

The submitted Ecological Appraisal5 sets out that, in addition to the scrub, trees, and hedgerow around the site that may provide future nesting for birds, the northern boundary provides a suitable linear feature for commuting bats, and a line of trees beyond the western boundary do the same. The assessment concludes that ‘the proposed development poses some risk to ecological receptors. No further surveys are recommended, however habitat enhancements/suitable working practices are recommended’. 5 by [name], December 2023

However, this is contradicted by comments on page 24 which sets out that ‘One dusk emergence survey should be undertaken to suggest the presence or likely absence of roosting bats. The survey should be undertaken during the optimal bat survey season (May to August)’.

Moreover, its assessment is predicated upon the premise that ‘The trees around the boundary will remain in place and are not to be affected by the development.’ As set out above, it has not been demonstrated that this is the case.

As such, there is some doubt as to the effectiveness of its suggested mitigation and enhancement measures set out in section 4.1 of the report. The report specifically sets out that ‘As the development is planned to be within the centre of the field, a significant distance away from the linear boundary features, no impacts due to artificial lighting are anticipated. However, to show this to be the case a lighting plan is required to clearly define how the western and northern boundaries will be kept dark and indicate where all external lighting is to be situated’. This does not include elements of developments such as the wash down areas/vehicle jetwash system which are sited near the northern boundary.

Notwithstanding that no conditions are suggested relating to working hours, as set out above, the submitted design and access statement sets out that there would be no access to the workshop and no loading, unloading outside of ‘daytime hours’. Therefore, even if a condition could secure only low-level lighting to discretely illuminate the hard surfaced areas, there is uncertainty regarding the assumptions of the submitted report and the subsequent soundness of its recommendations.

The guidance on development document is clear that sets out that in relation to development within [name], early discussions with the local planning authority (who will consult Natural England as necessary) are essential, in order ‘to ensure adequate data is obtained and appropriate bespoke mitigation measures are designed in at an appropriately early stage.’

In undertaking this AA, I must take a precautionary approach. As such securing such information and any mitigation measures at a later stage through conditions, as suggested by the Council’s ecologist, does not provide me with the necessary certainty that an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC would be avoided.

For the above reasons, the development would therefore not comply with the protection of ecological networks and provision of all necessary information to enable compliance with the Habitats Regulations goals of [name] DP5 and DP6, in addition to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy6 identifies that the site is within an area identified by The Environment Agency as being at the lowest risk of flooding.

The proposed drainage strategy sets out that percolation tests revealed that infiltration is not possible and there is no surface water body within or adjacent to the site. It states that surface water and foul waste will therefore be discharged to 6 [name], December 2023 the nearest sewers in accordance with the drainage hierarchy set out in the Flood Risk Planning Practice Guidance.

Given the modest scale of the site in relation to the development proposed, there is limited opportunity to accommodate SUDS such as green infrastructure such as attenuation ponds, rain gardens or swales. However the drainage system would incorporate above ground water harvesting, in addition to the attenuation tanks.

The appellant has set out additionally that part of the site is suitable for soakaway and this could be incorporated into the drainage scheme to maximise infiltration available in part of the site to reduce discharge to the public sewer.

This would correspond with the comments made by [name] in the submitted correspondence in relation to demonstrating viability with the SuDS hierarchy.

As such, even if at present there is inconsistencies in the submitted information, it is evident that drainage system compliant with the SuDS hierarchy is possible on the site. [name] minded to allow the appeal, suitably worded conditions, as included in the Council’s suggested conditions, could secure a sustainable drainage strategy, that would prevent the risk of flooding. There would therefore be no conflict with [name] DP7 and DP23, which require development to maximise opportunities for the use of sustainable drainage systems.

The site is nearby to the Grade II Registered Park and Garden at Marston House7. The park and gardens were listed in 1984 and consist of pleasure grounds laid out by [name] between 1724 and 1745 and altered with advice from [name] in the 1820s, and a late 18th/early 19th century park set around [address]. The house is an early 17th century, (with extensive alterations in the 18th and 19th century), [name]* listed former country house.

The significant scale of the wider site encompasses formal pleasure grounds, some agricultural land, [name], and a number of other separately listed structures. The special interest and significance of Park and Gardens largely stem from its historic managed landscape. The setting of the park and garden consists of a variety of open countryside, sporadic dwellings and some commercial premises. The setting therefore contributes modestly to the significance of the

Given its location on the opposite side of a roundabout and the intervening trees and hedgerow, the proposed development would not be seen in the same context as the park and garden. Given the position and nature of the proposed development therefore, the setting of this designated heritage asset would be preserved, and its significance would not be harmed. It is noteworthy that the Council have not raised any objection in this respect. A lack of harm in these regards, however, does not alter my conclusions.

Whilst not specifically referenced in the reasons for refusal, the [name] raises issue with whether the development provides Local Plan compliant carbon reduction measures. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I am not pursuing this matter further because it could not lead me to a different

The Local Plan (chapter 4 part 2) sets out that the Council will engage and respond to the land and accommodation requirements of local employers and businesses to retain and expand jobs in the district. The local plan acknowledges the need for a significant amount of additional employment land to support business development and growth in the Mendip. However, the evidence before me8 indicates that the Local Planning Authority continues to have a strong supply of [name].

The appellant is finding difficulty with find a suitable alternative site for this business, which has long standing links to the local area, and is experiencing difficulty with security of tenure issues on its current site. However, it is not demonstrated that suitable locations for the business that would better meet the Council’s spatial strategy, are not available. It is not for the Council to highlight specific possible locations for the business.

Nevertheless, in general supporting the local economy is a goal of the Local Plan and the business would be of benefit to the district, particularly in terms of job creation/ retention and business retention. However, notwithstanding the conflict with other elements/criteria of these same [name] that seek to protect the rural surrounding, given the scale of the development with regards to the wider local economy, the weight given to this economic benefit is moderate.

Little detail is provided of the referenced approvals for business parks9 or a haulage depot10 in rural locations, which prevents direct comparison. Moreover, these developments are unlikely to have the exact same effect on the wider surroundings as I have detailed above.

Planning decisions should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not be located in a suitable location having regard to the development plan for the area, would harm the character and appearance of the area and would not comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), which is an overriding consideration. The moderate benefits outlined above do not outweigh these identified harms.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.