Appeal 6004278

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site forms part of an existing industrial estate. It benefitted from a previous planning permission to enable open storage on the land, although the height of areas of storage was restricted to a maximum of 3 metres in height via condition. The appeal before me seek to increase the height of any stored material from 3 metres to a maximum of 6 metres.

The site is located on the western edge of the industrial estate, adjacent to open countryside. The appellant has provided a Landscape and [name] (the LVA) which has been produced by [name]. The LVA identifies two key viewpoints which are located on nearby public rights of way. From both vantage points the LVA concludes that the landscape impact of storage to a maximum of 6 metres would be acceptable, taking account of other structures on the industrial estate, and planting which was provided as part of the previously approved application.

I have had careful regard to the LVA, and in particular, Figure A2 (Appendix 9 of the appellant’s appeal statement) and Figure B2 (Appendix 11). These drawings provide an analysis of the likely impact on the two identified viewpoints. For each of the views, Figures A2 and B2 demonstrate that, at a maximum height of 3 metres, the stored items or materials would be almost entirely screened by the existing planting. However, at a maximum height of 6 metres, the materials would be much more visible between the trees at different points. This would particularly be the case from viewpoint A.

During my site visit I was able to walk to these two viewpoints. From both locations, certain buildings can be perceived on the industrial estate, including the large storage containers associated with an anaerobic digester plant. However, these buildings appear as fairly disparate and sporadic features within the overall vista, and as such, the industrial estate is not visually dominant and does little to detract from the overall sense of rurality.

I recognise that the likelihood is that the stored material would be at different heights across the appeal site. However, this is not certain, and the effect of amending the imposed condition would allow stored material on any part of the site, or indeed all of it, to be at a height of 6 metres. I am particularly concerned about the potential impact on viewpoint A. At present, as one leaves the industrial estate to the west, the character of the area quickly becomes quite bucolic. In contrast, Figure A2 clearly demonstrates that the appeal site, and the stored material within it, would be a much more obvious and dominant feature over quite a large area.

Indeed, the current perception of a scattering of industrial buildings which blend into the surrounding landscape would be largely lost. This would also be the case from viewpoint B, but perhaps to a slightly lesser extent. In effect, it seems to me that, while the trees may continue to mature, and that there would be a buffer within the site, the planting is only sufficient to adequately screen the storage of material to a height of 3 metres as per the original planning permission. As such, storage to a greater height would require additional planting to enable a greater level of screening.

Therefore, while I acknowledge that industrial estates will inevitably have some impact on the surrounding landscape, I am of the view that in this instance the harm to character and appearance would be significant. The proposal to amend the relevant condition would therefore conflict with Policies DP1, DP4 and DP7 of the Mendip Local Plan, Part 1 Strategy and Policies. Taken together, the relevant aspects of the policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance.

I note that the appellant has alleged that there have been some inconsistencies in the Council’s decision making in relation to the wider industrial estate. As part of this argument, they have sought to draw my attention to planning permission 2015/2805/FUL. I do not have the full details of that scheme before me and so making direct comparisons is difficult. However, the officer report for that application clearly notes that the proposed storage elements would not result in any significant alteration to visual appearance. Given that the proposal before me would result in a potential doubling of the height of stored material, the same conclusions cannot be reached in this instance. In any event, each application must be considered on its merits, and I am entitled as the decision maker in this appeal to reach my own conclusions.

The appellant has also questioned whether condition 4 of the original permission meets the relevant tests for planning conditions. However, I am satisfied that the condition was necessary to preserve character and appearance and that it was entirely appropriate for the Council to impose it.

The proposed development would result in significant harm to character and appearance and would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The proposed amendment to condition 4 would provide some economic benefits for the local area in terms of supporting an existing business. In undertaking this planning balance, I am acutely aware that the appeal site forms part of a designated employment area, as identified within Policy DP25 of the Mendip Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Policies. This policy seeks to support proposals that will encourage investment within such areas and is a very important consideration. However, this policy does not mean that industrial development of any kind is acceptable within such areas, no matter the visual impact. Indeed, the development plan must be read as a whole, and I have set out why the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of harm in this instance.

Given the size of the site, the economic benefits of the appeal proposal would be fairly moderate in nature. Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.