Appeal 6003616

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use to car park for B8 use (storage and distribution) as well as the existing building which is approx.150m2 at [site address] [name], [address], Broxbourne [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref 07/24/0623/F, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development shall be completed in accordance with the details shown on drawings: 4052-25A2-02 Rev.B, 169938-001 and 169938-002.

The use shall be carried out in accordance with the measures contained within the ‘Delivery & Site Management Plan’, planning ref 07/24/0623/F.

No more than eight mobile homes shall be stored on the site at any time. The areas indicated on the approved plans for the parking and turning of vehicles shall be kept available for this purpose and shall remain free of obstruction at all times.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form provided with the appeal, dated 22 July 2024. I have removed reference to it being retrospective since that is not a description of development. Notwithstanding the other references among the evidence, it is that description of development on which this decision is based, since that is the development for which the appellant sought planning permission.

I am aware of a separate appeal against an enforcement notice relating to the use of the site for storage and distribution. That appeal has not yet been determined and, since it is made in relation to grounds c) and f) of Section 174(2), I am satisfied that the determination of this appeal can be progressed.

The main issues are: whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt including effects on openness, and effects on highway safety.

Policy GB1 of the Broxbourne Local Plan adopted 2020 (the BLP) states that applications in the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions it lists applies.

Paragraph 154h) of the Framework states that an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt can include other forms of development provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, among others, the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction and material changes in the use of land. Based on the evidence I see no strong reason that this should not include consideration of storage uses.

It therefore falls to be considered whether the development preserves openness and conflicts with the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt. Planning Practice Guidance identifies factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. This includes, but is not limited to, visual and spatial aspects, duration and degree of activity.

The appeal site is in a rural location to the north of [site address] but close to a group of residential properties on the eastern side of [address]. The openness of the surrounding area is established by the open fields opposite the appeal site and the generous plots of the houses to the north. The appeal site itself has a more enclosed nature due to the vegetation at the front of the site and lining its boundaries, which limits visibility into the site from the road. However, largely uninterrupted views of the site are possible from the public right of way (PROW) which runs along the southern side of the site. The existing building and the surface level car park are set back from the road, but contribute to the appreciation of the area’s openness in views from the PROW and in private views from the nearest residential properties.

Despite its recent vacancy, the evidence suggests there are no planning conditions restricting hours or days of operation of the meeting hall and associated car park for 20 cars. The existing use could therefore generate a moderate amount of activity on the site, as well as up to [address]. While these are transient impacts, they would nonetheless reduce the spatial and visual aspects of the site’s openness. While the appeal scheme entails the storage of taller mobile homes, there would be fewer of them and the supporting documents suggest associated movements and activity on the site would be few. They would also be positioned against the site’s boundaries and other structures. For these reasons in combination, the use of the land would preserve the Green Belt’s openness in both visual and spatial terms. As no changes are proposed to the existing building, and given the level of use described by the appellant, its re-use would also preserve the Green Belt’s openness. For the same reasons, and having regard to the site’s location and relationship to the nearest settlements, I do not find conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt set out in the Framework.

For the reasons given, the development meets the exception to inappropriate development at paragraph 154h) of the Framework. It is not, therefore, inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the development complies with Policy GB1 of the BLP as well as the provisions of the Framework described above. Given this finding, it is not necessary to consider whether very special circumstances exist, since they are not necessary to justify the development in Green Belt terms.

The Council allege that the nature and scale of associated vehicle movements from the site would result in severe and unsafe highways impacts for road users, including pedestrians. This is an unclassified local distributor road with a 30mph speed limit outside the site and I observed the road to be reasonably busy, although this was only a snapshot in time. I note the sensitive uses near the site highlighted by third parties, including a school, homes and stables, as well as other intended development. I observed that the footpath on the eastern side of [address] finishes at the appeal site, and a continuous footpath exists instead on the opposite side of the road.

The County Highways Authority commented on the development a number of times during the course of the planning application 1 to which the appellant responded with additional information. Most notably this included a Delivery and Site Management Plan and drawings of swept path analysis and visibility splays at the site’s access. Accordingly, the last comment from the Highways Authority raised no objection to the application.

Based on the evidence before me, the visibility splays shown are appropriate for the 30mph speed limit to ensure that vehicles emerging from the site have suitable visibility of vehicles and pedestrians in either direction despite the bend in the road. The swept path analysis also demonstrates vehicles are able to access and egress the site safely. I have no substantive evidence to the contrary which would lead me to conclude that these are inaccurate or could not be achieved. The Delivery and Site Management Plan sets out the maximum of four mobile home deliveries a week which could reasonably be secured by condition. While mobile homes can vary in size there is not substantive evidence that a restriction on their size would be necessary or reasonable here. Neither is it apparent that further information surrounding vehicle movements or mitigation measures are necessary.

Based on the evidence before me, there is not substantive evidence to demonstrate that the development causes unacceptable or harmful impacts on highway safety. The development is acceptable in this respect and compliant with Policy TM2 of the BLP insofar as it relates to impacts on the transport network and the safety of movement corridor users. 1 Hertf ordshire County Comments dated 22 August 2024, 5 September 2024, 27 May 2025, 6 October 2025, 2 December 2025

An earlier Section 106 agreement, dated 24 June 1991, relates to the use of the building and development on the site. I understand it remains binding and as such it is a material consideration to this appeal. However, the obligation reflects policy requirements at that time rather than the current development plan, under which the appeal scheme has been found to be policy compliant, and gives rise to no planning harm. The appellant has submitted a separate application to modify or discharge the obligation, which the Council is actively considering 2. Evidence is also submitted with the appeal to suggest the Gospel Hall Trust, who were party to the agreement, no longer require the site. In these circumstances I find there is a realistic prospect that the legal constraint could be addressed. Accordingly, I give that obligation limited weight and it does not amount to a material consideration of sufficient weight to determine the appeal other than in accordance with the

Although the Council’s decision notice refers to the development being for a temporary 3 year period, this is not reflected in the description of development for which the appellant applied on the application form before me3. As the development is policy compliant I see no strong reason to limit it in this way.

Although not in the reasons for refusal, the Council’s Statement also refers to visual harm to the character and appearance of the landscape. Having regard to the lawful use of the land and for the same reasons set out above, the development does not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the landscape.

In determining the appeal I have had regard to the other concerns raised by third parties. There is not substantive evidence to support that the development has cause unacceptable harm to biodiversity and the removal of trees does not form part of the development before me. Given the level of use which could be secured by conditions, it is not apparent that the use would generate unacceptable noise disturbance and I observed that external lighting already exists around the car park. I also have no strong reason to doubt that an acceptable distance from the overhead line tower could be achieved to ensure its maintenance.

I am aware of concerns relating to breeches of planning control on the site and these are matters for the Council in their enforcement capacity. The circumstances surrounding the removed trees and whether they were protected, have not been set out, and I see no strong reason that this should prohibit the grant of planning permission here. Similarly, issues relating to lack of maintenance and upkeep of the site are beyond the scope of this appeal. [name] appreciate concerns surrounding lack of engagement with the local community, this does not amount to a reason to withhold planning permission.

The Council have provided a list of conditions which it suggests should be imposed if planning permission were granted. This includes conditions suggested by its consultees. I have considered these in light of the relevant tests for planning conditions set out in the Framework. Since the use is already being carried out, a 2 Council ref erence 07/25/1034/MOD106 3 Application Form dated 22 July 2024 time limit on commencement is not necessary. I have however listed the approved drawings to provide clarity to the parties. I have removed reference to an earlier drawing which showed incorrect visibility splays.

For reasons of amenity and highway safety, compliance with the measures set out in the delivery and management plan is necessary. The areas shown for manoeuvring vehicles on the site should also be maintained free of obstruction for the reason of highway safety, to prevent the need for vehicles to manoeuvre on the road. I have combined this with a restriction of eight mobile homes on which the approved drawings are based.

As above, it is not apparent that a time limit on the permission meets the test of necessity here. It follows that a condition requiring the use of the site to revert to use class F1 after three years is neither reasonable or necessary. There is not evidence to suggest why, beyond the measures contained in the delivery and management plan, further restrictions on hours, noise mitigation, dust control, or on construction, land contamination and imported soils, would be necessary to make this development acceptable in planning terms. Having regard to the site’s context, lawful use and existing lighting on the site, and in the absence of evidence on this matter, I am not convinced that future controls on external lighting are either necessary or reasonable.

Based on what I have seen, a condition restricting the building to a class E(g)i) office use would not be reasonable. [name] note this is referred to in the appellant’s Planning Statement, this would be at odds with the description of development sought, which instead encompasses the building within the storage and distribution use. Neither is a condition restricting industrial processes necessary here, since the description of development for which planning permission is granted clearly refers only to a B8 use.

I note the other informatives suggested by the Highways Authority. These relate to separate regulatory regimes and it is not necessary that they form planning

For the reasons given, the development is compliant with the development plan. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it and the appeal is allowed.