Appeal 6004001

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 20242080 for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a self-storage facility (Use Class B8), with associated landscaping, parking and servicing areas at 257 [name], Leicester [postcode] granted on 16 December 2025 by Leicester City Council, is varied by deleting condition 27 and substituting for it the following condition:

Construction of the relevant part of the development hereby permitted shall not proceed until the sample panels as approved under condition 26 have been provided on site for inspection by Officers and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, of the following; • Panel 1 – yellow protruding fins, glazing lookalike panels, regular glazing, horizontal banding, brick soldier course, Wienerberger Heritage Blend brick piers. • Panel 2 – aluminium extruded fin, rainscreen cladding panels, brick soldier course detail and Wienerberger Heritage Blend brick piers. • Panel 3 – [name] brick protruding header, hit and miss recess and glazed recess detail. • Panel 4 – cladding panels, curtain wall and canopy. The Development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with such details as so approved before the building is occupied.

The Leicester Local Plan 2020 to 2036 (LP) was adopted on 9 June 2026. Neither party drew attention in their Statement of Cases to any policies that might represent a change in direction in terms of design issues, in what at that time was an advanced emerging plan. Furthermore, the LP aligns with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in setting an expectation for achieving well-designed places. I am satisfied that the adoption of the LP does not materially affect my assessment of the main issue in this appeal. I have not therefore referred back to the parties on this matter.

Planning permission has been granted for a new self-storage facility on the appeal site. Condition 27 of that permission requires sample panels to be made up and then approved. This relates to four parts of the approved building. The main issue is whether the condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area, and whether it is precise in its requirements.

It is evident from the submissions before me that there was extended dialogue during the course of the planning application, further to the consultation responses provided by the Council’s Urban Design Officer (UDO). It is clear to my mind that this led to an improvement in the overall design and appearance of the scheme that was ultimately granted planning permission. The delivery of good quality design aligned with the aims of the then adopted Policy CS03 of the [name] 2014 which is referred to in the reason given for the condition, and with the Framework where it seeks to achieve well-designed places. The LP too seeks to deliver well-designed places through the implementation of its design policies.

Condition 27 identifies four panels, based on the recommendations of the UDO. A significant amount of detail and material specifications were submitted and agreed during the determination of the planning application; [name] images were prepared and amendments made. However, condition 27 seeks sample panels of specific elements of the building which display detailing and/or contrasting materials and/or recesses and/or protruding elements. These are parts of the building that will require construction techniques and the interfacing of materials in a less standard way than, for example, the construction of brick courses. Whilst computer generated images do have merit, they are not by default substitutes for the provision of further details, including sample panels, if the circumstances support this.

The requirements of condition 27 are a justifiable continuation of the Council’s desire that a high-quality building is delivered. I do not consider its requirements to provide sample panels to be unnecessary or unreasonable in that context. The sample panels would be an extension of what has already been submitted, bridging the gap between the drawings, images and details provided and how the building would appear in real life, given the interfaces identified. They would not be a repetition of details already provided.

Although there is likely to be some waste of materials as a result of the construction of the panels, that consideration does not outweigh the considerable benefits of achieving an acceptable finish on a large building in a prominent location which is likely to stand for a substantial period of time. No substantive evidence has been provided that the requirements of condition 27 would add considerable time and cost to the construction programme. And the concern that the Council will not act proactively and in a timely manner in discharging the condition is not justification for varying it, in particular as such an argument could be applied to any condition that requires their approval. None of these considerations render the condition as unreasonable or unnecessary.

That the appeal site is located in a predominately commercial area and not within a conservation area does not mean that the proposal should not seek to contribute to the delivery of well-designed places. The appellant provides some analysis of the characteristics of sites elsewhere where sample panels have been required, but even if the appeal development is deemed not to be a sensitive area or the proposed development not to be a tall building, this does not mean that the imposition of the condition is unreasonable or unnecessary. Whilst the approved development would represent a significant investment in the city, there is no substantive evidence to show that condition 27 as imposed might affect its delivery, including in terms of adding prohibitive cost.

The requirements of the condition are precise because what is required is tied to the requirements of condition 26. That condition requires the submission and approval of the construction details of each of the sample panels. The required drawings at 1:20 would allow for the precise sizes of the samples to be agreed at that point. The revised condition wording put forward by the appellant would provide individual samples only and would not illustrate the interfaces between them. It would not therefore provide the level of detail that I have found to be both reasonable and necessary.

I am satisfied that the condition also meets the other three tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework, namely that it is enforceable, relevant to the development permitted and relevant to planning. Therefore, all 6 tests as set out in the Framework are met.

As the appellant has pointed out and as the Council accepts, there is a typographical error in condition 27 where it refers to the sample panels as approved under condition 27. It is self-evident and common ground between the parties that the reference should instead be to the preceding condition, condition 26, which requires agreement of the construction details of the sample panels. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to correct that error and in doing so I would be allowing the appeal. There is also some inconsistency with cross references to panels 4 and 5 between conditions 26 and 27, which too can be corrected.

In conclusion, I find that the condition is required in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area, and to achieve the aim of delivering well-designed places which is a key tenet of both local and national planning policy. It follows that the condition is reasonable and necessary, and I also find that it meets with each of the other tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. [name] have not found in favour of the appellant, the appeal should nonetheless be allowed, in order that the typographical matters raised can be corrected.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.