Appeal 6004042

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of land to self-storage container yard and the siting of 49 storage containers at [site address] , [site address] , Danbury, Chelmsford, Essex, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00933/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decision.

To better reflect the proposal and in acknowledgement that the appellant is content for the storage containers, as operational development, to form part of the scheme, I have amended the description of development in my decision above. This approach does not prejudice any party as the presence of the storage containers have been assessed as part of the scheme.

The change of use subject to this appeal has already commenced and the storage containers are already in situ. I was able to observe this at my site visit and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms a parcel of land approximately 0.33 hectares in extent, in a rural, countryside location between Danbury and Bicknacre. The site falls within the Rural Area as defined by the Chelmsford Local Plan (adopted 2020) (LP). Located on the eastern side of [site address] , it sits amongst a pocket of commercial development, a former farm, in an otherwise largely undeveloped open landscape.

A long-established petrol station, its forecourt and a commercial yard are located to the north. To the north-east and east, behind the appeal site is a commercial premises which comprises open storage with whom the appeal site shares an existing vehicular access. An intervening tree belt forms a backdrop to the appeal site from the roadside. In contrast, the western side of [site address] opposite, typically comprises hedge lined open fields.

Evidence shows that prior to the commencement of the storage use, the appeal site was bound by a broadly 2-metre-high timber fence and concrete block wall fronting [site address] , set back behind a grass verge. The Council accept that given the length of time it has been in situ, this is now immune from formal enforcement action. Therefore, this can be regarded as the established and lawful boundary. The Council also accept that the site constitutes previously developed land (PDL) owing to the hardstanding that remained on site from its previous use as a farm shop with polytunnels, which were removed from the site in 2017.

Given these factors, including the immediacy of the commercial context, I find that the contribution that the site previously made to the countryside character was limited.

The Council contend that open views across the site have been lost. However, the site was previously already well contained by the established fence and wall which partially obscured such views. Having begun its use in 2024, the site now accommodates 49 storage containers which have a degree of permanence. These are single storey flat roof containers, all set at ground level, with some of them located end on with the existing fence and block wall alongside [site address] . These protrude above the existing fence line and are more evident from the roadside than the previous use, which was predominantly devoid of built form.

In this regard the proposal conflicts with LP Policy DM8. This is because this policy requires an assessment of the size, scale, massing and spread of the new development and its visual impact compared to the existing. Compared to the established previous use, there is no doubt that the introduction of the storage containers has a greater adverse visual effect than the previous use.

However, to mitigate the additional visual effects of the containers, it is proposed to replace the existing frontage boundary with a 3-metre-high fence, set further back from the carriageway. This would be more recessive than the existing boundary, thus reducing its prominence. Native planting in front of the fence is also proposed, which the appellant has indicated could be larger stock to achieve a more immediate effect.

The new fence would largely obscure the operational development from public view. Whilst its height and expanse would be a stark feature, its consistency and set back further away from the road than the existing mis-matched boundary treatments, coupled with the soft planting would provide the opportunity of achieving a betterment to the site boundary and street scene appreciation in overall terms. This is an important material consideration.

The site would continue to be well contained on all sides, does not encroach into open countryside and would continue to be viewed against a backdrop of trees and an improved foreground of soft landscaping. Overall, it represents a logical, efficient use of the site. I find that the development, set amongst a small cluster of existing established commercial uses, would be appropriate to its context and would not unduly harm the character of the street scene as required by Policy DNP15 of the Danbury Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2036 (made 2024) (NP) and the associated [name].

Moreover, it already benefits from an existing commercial access, directly links to the existing storage business adjacent and it would make effective use of otherwise vacant PDL land, in accordance with Paragraph 124 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Taking these factors together, alongside the proposed mitigation which can be secured by condition, I find that the economic benefits and the improvements to the site frontage justify a decision other than in full accordance with the development plan.

For these reasons, with mitigation, the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable. The conflict with the LP is limited, mainly as the resulting development has an increased spatial impact through its scale and massing on a site that previously had little in the way of built form. However, when considered in the round, I find no conflict overall with [name] DM10, SP1, SP11 and DM23 which seek to respect and avoid adverse effects on the intrinsic character, appearance and beauty of the Rural Area, and landscapes. For the same reasons I identify no conflict with NP Policy DNP15.

When taking account of the benefits of the scheme, I find that these outweigh the harm and the limited policy conflict I have identified.

Part of [address], to the south is a ‘[address]’, of some historic integrity and consequently is a Non-Designated Heritage Asset. It is common ground that the proposal would not cause any adverse impact on it. From what I have read and seen, I have no reason to disagree.

Interested parties have raised concerns in relation to highway safety, access and visibility, noise and disturbance, operational matters, and potential effects on health, wellbeing and ecology. These issues are not identified as concerns by the Council and, in the absence of substantive supporting evidence, I find no justification to reach a different conclusion.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions. I have considered these in relation to the necessary tests set out in the Framework. I have amended some of them and included additional conditions as set out below.

In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, I have imposed conditions to require details of boundary treatments and soft landscape works to be submitted for approval and then be implemented in a timely manner. A condition to ensure the hedgerow is established and maintained for an initial 5-year period is also considered necessary and reasonable.

For the same reasons, a condition is imposed to ensure that the quantum of containers continues to reflect the plans and that storage containers are not stacked within the site.

In the interests of highway safety, a condition is necessary and reasonable to ensure that the storage containers are laid out only in accordance with the approved drawing.

To protect the environment from light pollution, a condition is required in the event that external lighting is necessary.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have also imposed a condition specifying the plans upon which this decision is based.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan in that it does not fully comply with LP Policy DM8. However, the degree of conflict is limited. When considered as a whole, the development broadly accords with the plan, and material considerations indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in strict accordance with it.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be allowed.

Within three months of the date of this decision, details of all proposed boundary treatments, including drawings of any gates, fences, walls, railings or piers, shall have been submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and the scheme shall include a timetable for their implementation.

Within three months of the date of this decision, details of soft landscape works shall have been submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out as approved within three months of approval or in the first available planting season, whichever is earliest. The landscaping details to be submitted shall include: i. Planting plans including specifications of species, sizes, planting centres, number and percentage mix; ii. Details of planting or features to be provided to enhance the value of the development for biodiversity and wildlife; and iii. Management details.

If, within a period of five years from the date of planting, the tree (or any tree planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

No more than a maximum of 49 containers shall be stored on site at any time, and the containers shall not be stacked more than 1 container high.

The self-storage container yard shall only be laid out as shown in the drawing at [name] - Site Layout Plan and Access, drawing no. 2507/12- 01 [name], contained in the submitted [name] dated September 2025.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting, full details including height, design, location and intensity shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall then be installed in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted relates to the following drawings: Site Plan (unreferenced, dated 11 Sep 2025), Site Layout and Access (Ref: 2507/12 -01 [name]), Location Plan (unreferenced, dated 11 September

and Block Plan (unreferenced, dated 11 September 2025). End of Condition Schedule