Appeal 6004426

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:  whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan;  the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and  whether the proposed development would have a harmful effect on living conditions for nearby residential occupiers.

The site is in the countryside beyond the Green Belt. As such, the proposal is subject to Policy EN2 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024) (the Local Plan). Support from this policy is dependent upon demonstrating a rural location to be necessary.

I do not doubt that tree surgery firms are likely to need space for external storage, equipment, and processing material. I can see that this may make rural locations attractive, and note that the nearest local firms are based in the countryside. None of this, however, shows me that it is only in rural locations where such firms may operate, or that non-countryside locations such as industrial estates would not also provide adequate space.

Even if I accept that tree surgery employees have historically come from rural backgrounds, and that this will probably continue, it does not show me that a tree surgery depot must be in a rural location. For one thing, I see no reason why employees would come from a localised catchment area around a depot; They may come from some distance away in the countryside, such that their journey to a given rural depot is at least as long as to some other, urban, depot. For another, whatever their background the employees may move to urban areas.

Overall, I see little reason to feel that a tree surgery depot inherently necessitates a rural location, even if they are commonly found in the countryside.

I do not doubt that the appellant’s particular business is directly tied to the Dorking area. Dorking, however, is not wholly rural at all, and I have little to show me there are no other, non-countryside places for his business needs in the local area. Even if the appellant’s business largely serves a rural community, I have little to show me that his work is so localised to the appeal site that a depot in a non-countryside location would not serve equally well as a base from which to travel. I have little before me to explain the nature of the appellant’s current depot, or why it is insufficient. Overall, I see little evidence that the ties between the appellant’s business and the Dorking area necessitate a rural location.

The appellant supplies a Bio-char plant some five miles from the site. Even if such proximity to the plant is, as the appellant has it, essential to ensure that the supply of product remains viable in logistical, financial and environmental terms, I have little to show me there are no non-countryside locations for his business which are at least as close to the plant as the appeal site.

Even if there are not, it is not evident that the proposed use of the appeal site, whether in general terms or as operated by the appellant, is one fundamentally based on supplying a Bio-char plant, rather than one in which a plant is supplied as a by-product of an otherwise unrelated tree surgery service. The description of development does not suggest it, nor does the fact that chipping would occur only one day a month. Indeed, it is not apparent that either the use in general, or the appellants business specifically, would cease or come under significant strain if not for supplying a Bio-char plant. I see very little, therefore, to show that the supply element of the business requires or justifies development in the countryside.

Overall, I do not find that the proposed use necessitates a rural location. As such, the proposal does not have the support of Local Plan Policy EN2. The appellant does not contest that the proposal would generate reliance on private motor vehicles; Rather, his case in response to the fifth reason for refusal is predicated upon his business being considered a rural one for the relevant purposes. Given my findings above, it follows that I cannot support this aspect of the appellant’s case. The proposal conflicts with Local Plan Policy INF1 where it supports more sustainable modes of transport. In the context of both policies, the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to

[site address] is a country lane which, in places, is too narrow for two vehicles to pass. Plan 24-271-T-006(A) indicates that what appear to be private driveways and a field access, distinct from the main roadway, would be relied upon to serve as informal passing points. The matter is clarified by a combination of plan 016 (A), which indicates that vehicles may pass each other at several points along the road without obviously utilising private driveways, and by the appellant’s Highways Appeal Statement, which tells me a number of these passing places are in fact where the carriageway and surface of [site address] widens to meet driveways.

The central passing point, labelled as VP4, does not meet the above description. It is also the one furthest from any alternative points and, in that respect, is particularly important. It appears to rely on little more than the erosion over time of roadside grass. Even so, it is not evident to me that it cannot function as a passing point. Indeed, the eroded condition of the land as captured on plan 006 (A) suggest it may be established practice for vehicles to pass there.

Whilst there are points along [site address] where two vehicles could not pass and, at times, this may result in a reversing manoeuvre to the nearest passing point, neither is uncommon in country lanes. I see no reason to find that drivers would not expect as much, and the distances between passing points are modest. I see no reason why standard width vehicles could not pass each other.

Even with the passing points, wider vehicles could not evidently pass by another vehicle along the main body of [site address] . I do not support the appellant’s contention that conflict involving wider vehicles would be avoided simply because they would be infrequent; Even if a wide vehicle were to use the road once a day, I see no way to ensure that another vehicle would not be using it at the same time.

That said, the site may be used for agricultural purposes. Even if a [name] (HGV) license issued there should not continue beyond its expiry on 31 January 2027, I see little to suggest that wide vehicles are prevented from travelling up [site address] to the appeal site and the open land around it, or to view such vehicular movements as unlikely in an agricultural enterprise. Furthermore, should I allow the appeal the opportunity would arise to manage wider vehicle movements through planning conditions. Given all of this, I do not see that the appeal proposal would create a worse state of affairs in respect of wider vehicles than the lawful use of the site.

The surface of the road is loose, and I found it to contain potholes in places. Neither are unusual for private roadways of this type in my experience. The appellant contends, principally through a [name] undertaken by [name], that the surface serves to require lower speeds. I have very little from the Council to suggest otherwise and see no reason to doubt it.

I have been provided with little from the Council to explain why the proposal would lend itself to a significant amount of HGV movements; that does not seem an obvious likely consequence of a tree surgery depot. [name] may occasionally be used as part of the proposal, I see no reason to feel their number or frequency would be greater than those I could reasonably anticipate from the lawful use of the site. I do not find, therefore, that the proposal would result in a reduction of safety in respect of HGV movements.

[site address] includes Bridleway 313. I do not doubt it is used by walkers, cyclists, and horse riders, but they will already be accustomed to motor vehicles on the roadway, which contains several verge areas to step off as a vehicle passes. The loose and inconsistent road surface necessitates slower vehicular movements to the benefit of non-motorised road users.

The proposal may increase the frequency of vehicle movement on [site address] , but I have little to show me that the anticipated number of movements would be significantly greater than could be expected from the lawful use of the site, or to mark a significant increase in the overall number of movements on the roadway, given the number and type of other properties accessed from it.

Overall, I see no reason to find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety, and see no conflict in that regard with Local Plan Policy INF1 or EN10.

The Council cites insufficient information to demonstrate that activities within the appeal site would have no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity and, notwithstanding its delegated report, ultimately takes the same position regarding associated vehicular movements along [site address] .

The appellant has supplied an environmental noise impact assessment (NIA) by Sound Planning Ltd1. This focuses on specific machines used in material handling and chipping. Whilst identifying these as the principal noise-generating activities associated with the proposal, the appellant does not contest that there may also be sound from other activities or machines used at the site (the other sounds). Rather, they consider that the details of these other sounds could be agreed through planning conditions.

To proceed in that way, I must be content that the type and volume of the other sounds would not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity, or at least that they could be prevented from doing so by controls I could reasonably impose.

The appellant has accepted a condition, proposed by the Council, that other than when loading and unloading vehicles no equipment with a sound power of more than 80dBA shall be used at the site. Setting aside the effect this may have on use of the chipping machine, it does not suggest any intention to deploy equipment much noisier than the handling machine, recorded in the NIA as producing some 76dB. That machine, even with a penalty applied to reflect its sound characteristics, was found to result in a low/adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, reduced to low impact by contextual factors.

Those factors, however, include the principal noise-generating activities occurring only once a month. I see little to suggest that the other sounds could not occur far more frequently. Furthermore, and with reference to the methodology set out in the NIA, I cannot discount the prospect that frequent use of equipment such as a chainsaw may warrant a higher penalty weighting than has been applied to the handling and chipping equipment. Taking all of this together, it is not apparent that the other sounds would be incapable of causing unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity.

It may be that the other sounds could be managed or restricted in such a way as to prevent harm, but I have few specific details of how such controls might operate. A noise management plan appended to the NIA focuses on communication of the plan and points of contact, but tells me little as to how the other sounds might be managed, restricted, or contained.

I recognise that the Council’s Environmental Health officer supported the use of planning conditions, but that support was predicated on more detailed information 1 Version 1.3 dated 17 Match 2025. about site operations, including the other sounds. I also recognise that the National Planning Policy Framework tells local planning authorities to only request supporting information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question. Full details of how the other sounds would be addressed need not be set out at this stage necessarily, but the submissions give me so little indication of how the protection of neighbouring amenity might be achieved as to leave me unclear that it could be.

In addition, I have very little from the appellant to address the Council’s concerns over the effect of vehicle movements on residential amenity. Given that there would be some 30 vehicle movements a day, including some involving wider vehicles, it is not evident that these concerns need not be addressed.

I have found the anticipated number of vehicle movements to not pose an evident risk to road safety, but that does not mean they pose no risk to amenity. The former may benefit from the slow movement of vehicles necessitated by the loose road surface, whereas the latter may suffer for it.

Overall, the information supplied fails to demonstrate the proposal would not have a harmful effect on living conditions for nearby residential occupiers, or that planning conditions may reasonably be relied upon to address any such harm. The proposal does not evidently comply, therefore, with Local Plan Policy EN4 which requires development to ensure the amenity of residents occupying properties in the surrounding area is not significantly affected.

The site is near to [address], Cottages 1 and 2, and [name] to south of [address]. These are [name] listed buildings2. I have therefore had regard to the statutory duty referred to in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Given the reasonable separation distance, and presence between the site and the Listed Buildings of other modern farm buildings, I am content that the setting of the Farmhouse buildings would be preserved, and the proposal would not detract from it.

The proposal may support the appellant’s business. If that business were to grow, then economic benefits would ensue. However, I have little evidence as to the scale of any anticipated growth. Indeed, the submissions largely indicate that the business would simply relocate. I also have little to show me that the appellant’s business would not continue to trade at a comparable level if not for the proposal.

The proposal would also make use of existing development at the site, but I see little reason to think that it could not be brought into use if not for the appeal proposal. Indeed, it is not apparent that greater economic benefits would not accrue from an agricultural use of the site than from the appeal proposal.

It has not been necessary for me to consider the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Even if it caused no harm in that respect, that would be an expectation of development rather than a benefit. The same is true of maintaining highway safety. 2 [name]: 1028716; 1378140

Overall, the scale and nature of any benefits that may be derived from the scheme are unclear. As such, they do not outweigh the harms identified.

[name] have found no reason to conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety, overall, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

The appeal is dismissed.