Appeal 6004431

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is accompanied by a Highways and [name] (HTR) and a Noise Impact Assessment Report (NIAR). Neither of these were before the Council at the time of their decision. Interested parties have had the opportunity of commenting on these as part of the appeal process, such that, procedurally, no party would be prejudiced by my acceptance of them.

I note that the NIAR seeks to include a 3 metre (m) high acoustic fence as mitigation. However, I am unable to take this into account as it would introduce a fundamental change to the scheme, contrary to the guidance 1 which is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. Likewise, the HTR advances a further three passing places along the southern access route to the B1135, which I do not take into account for the same reasons. I proceed on that basis.

The evidence indicates that operational development began on 2 December 2024. It is also evident from interested party comments and my site visit that the change of use of the site has commenced, although it is unclear if the business has fully relocated and when that change of use occurred.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on highway safety; • whether the site is a suitable location for the development, having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and its accessibility; and 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals - England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. Updated 18 February 2026. • the effect of the development on the living conditions of local residents, having particular regard to noise generated along the access route and operational activity within the site.

The appeal site lies off [site address] (the U35014) and is served by a wide bell-mouthed access point on a bend in the highway, located north-east of Garvestone village, in the countryside. Prior to the appeal development, the established use of the site was for agriculture, as a poultry farm for egg production.

From the appeal site there are two main routes for vehicles to access the main highway network, namely the B1135 road that links Dereham with Wymondham. The southern route is the most direct. This route, which has a speed limit of 30mph, is towards and through Garvestone village via [site address] , leading to Tanners Green and Town Lane to join the B1135 road, which the main parties agree is somewhere between 0.9km and 1km from the sites access point. The northern access route to the B1135 road is longer, at around 4.3km from the site access point and for the most part, is subject to the national speed limit. This takes traffic via the C200 [address] in Yaxham, which requires vehicles to negotiate [site address] , [address] (the U35020) and Brakefield Green/[address] (U35018).

Apart from where the northern route passes through Yaxham, both routes vary in width but are predominantly unlit single track rural lanes devoid of pavements, typically bound by grass verges or embankments, with limited formal passing places. Both are winding roads which, in places, restrict forward visibility.

Evidence suggests that the automated traffic count (ATC) data was collected during the week commencing 23 April 2025. Two locations were chosen along the southern route, one on Town Lane near the B1135, with the other positioned just west of the site access. Assuming that the proposed use had not commenced on site at this time, the results suggest the southern access route has low traffic flows, with peak two-way flows of 35 vehicles per hour and 85th percentile speeds below 25mph.

Between the two ATC locations, the traffic volume dropped by 60%, such that volumes of traffic can reasonably be reduced by that amount to arrive at data representative for the northern route. Road conditions are such that motorists are likely to be travelling at lower speeds than the 60mph speed limit, particularly where forward visibility is restricted.

Owing to the rural nature of the roads, where drivers encounter other motorists they must often manoeuvre, including reversing for potentially long stretches of road, to find the nearest place wide enough for vehicles to pass. Irrespective of low speeds and traffic volumes, given the nature of these roads, many drivers are likely to find this difficult, particularly if one or both vehicles are large.

With no separate footway, pedestrians are particularly vulnerable in such circumstances, which is also the case for cyclists and horse riders who would have limited options for retreating off the highway. Therefore, the current situation is less than ideal. However, the evidence before me indicates that prior to the development commencing, the roads experienced low traffic volumes such that the frequency for conflict was likely to be irregular. Furthermore, between the appeal site and the B1135 junction with Town Lane on the southern route, it is evident that the roads are not intended for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), as the road signage 2 explicitly advises so.

The appellants statement of case (ASOC) sets out the business employs 30 full-time staff, 4 of whom would work in the site office. Notwithstanding deliveries which typically occur twice a month, daily operations are said to comprise of 8 to 10 gangs, each having a digger and van with trailer, operated by two employees. Two reinstatement teams of 4 employees, each team operating a DAF hotbox vehicle, along with two grab lorries are also said to leave and return to the site daily.

The summary of traffic movements table 3 suggests the weekday worst case scenario would see 42 daily vehicle movements ([address]). Even if I were to accept that not all the 30 employees travel to the site to start their working day, I have concerns that this may not be fully reflective of the existing situation. This is because conflicting information is presented in relation to the quantum of daily vehicle movements. The Access Strategy and [name] (ASTN) suggests that three hotbox vehicles operate from the site as well as two flatbed lorries, which the ASOC does not mention at all. These factors mean that the robustness of the evidence is uncertain.

On the basis of the appellant’s figures, the proposal is said to add 16 additional vehicle movements to the network during the PM peak 4. Compared to the low traffic levels that existed before the use began, taking into account the development, the average PM peak for two-way traffic increases by about 53%5 at one ATC location and 145%6, representing a significant increase. [name] appreciate that this is substantially below the DfT guidance7 which indicates single track roads two-way traffic flow should not exceed 300 vehicles per hour, it would nevertheless change the character and nature of the highway network. Moreover, it would significantly increase the potential for conflicts on the road, increase the probability of vehicles overrunning verges and eroding the carriageway edge, leading to skid hazards from mud on the highway and thus cause hazards that could unduly impact highway safety.

Along the southern route, the Highways Authority note the carriageway width is, in places, only 3.2m wide, whilst on the northern route it has a typical width of between 3m and 3.2m, matters that are not disputed. Figure 7.1 of Manual for Streets8 indicates that a carriageway width of 4.8m wide is necessary to allow for a large vehicle and car to pass safely, which increases to 5.5m for a HGV and a car. The appellant states that most vehicle movements associated with the development would be by HGVs. Therefore, it is common ground that without mitigation, the highway network cannot safely accommodate the free flow of traffic for the types of vehicles that the appeal proposal generates. 2 ‘Unsuitable for HGV’s’ 3 at 4.2.2 of the highways appeal statement 4 Between 17:00 and 18:00 5 [name] 1 – PM peak is 30 vehicles per hour + 16 additional movements 6 [name] 2 – PM peak is 11 vehicles per hour + 16 additional movements 7 Department for Transport, TA2/04 8

Two mitigation options are proposed. Both relate to widening sections of the carriageway and/or the provision of passing places to be introduced along either the southern or northern route from the site access to the B1135. Option 1, as advanced at application stage, proposes off-site highway works in 4 places along the southern route, close to residential dwellings. Along the northern route, Option 2 proposes 16 passing places and/or improvement works. These would be located between the site access and [address] in Yaxham. The appellant’s position is that either option is acceptable, but they would implement one or the other, not both, depending on my findings.

The plans demonstrate that only three of the four proposed passing places/road widening areas along the southern route would be sufficiently wide to allow for a HGV and a car to pass one another. Additionally, some of the opportunities for passing referred to by the appellant are access points to fields and dwellings. This suggests a reliance on third party land where there is no guarantee that such land would be or remain available for such usage.

In respect of the southern route, it is common ground that the highway junction of Town Lane with the B1135 does not accord with the [name] for Roads and Bridges guidance. It follows that additional vehicles arising from the development and utilising this route to the appeal site would intensify the use of a sub-standard junction.

From the Town Lane junction of the B1135 heading towards the appeal site, the first possible passing place is around 120m away, opposite the [name]. The Highways Authority confirm that at just 4.6m wide, it is of insufficient width to allow for vehicles larger than two cars to pass. There is no scope for improvement works between this passing place and the junction due to steep embankments and established trees and vegetation at either side of the carriageway. Encountering a vehicle on this stretch of road, particularly a HGV, would therefore be hazardous, resulting in vehicles having to reverse for long distances in a confined space. These difficulties would be exacerbated during the winter months, when daylight hours diminish, particularly as evidence suggests the PM peak is the busiest period for the road.

Vehicles turning into the Town Lane junction from the B1135, particularly HGVs which tend to be slower to react, and encountering another vehicle emerging from the opposite direction, would either have to remain stationary to allow the other vehicle to pass or reverse back onto the B1135. Either action would be likely to obstruct the road or create a safety risk for other highway users. Vehicles waiting on the B1135, or those performing such manoeuvres would provide an obstruction for other vehicular traffic and road users. Given this is a main rural thoroughfare, this could have a significant detrimental impact on highway safety. These factors undermine highway safety and are certainly not representative of a safe, suitable and convenient access as required by Policy TR02 of the Breckland Local Plan 2023 (BLP). I do not consider that the elevated seat positioning of HGV’s would negate these risks.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal 9 which is said to be concerned with setback distances for HGV’s from junctions. However, neither the appeal decision nor any of its detail is before me in evidence, and therefore I cannot have regard to 9 APP/X2600/W/22/3305638 it. In any case, not all vehicles generated by the development would be HGV’s, noting some staff would arrive in cars.

Along the alternative northern route, the significant number of interventions needed in mitigation, highlight the unsuitability of the route for such an intensification of traffic, particularly larger vehicles which this scheme would generate. Moreover, all of the road improvement areas shown, comprise off-site highway works that do not feature within the red line of the application site. Assumptions appear to have been made on where highway land is available without the benefit of proper surveys. Further, improvement works are said to be subject to detailed designs that are not before me. Their proposed widths are also not fully annotated. Consequently, I cannot be certain that these works are deliverable on publicly available land and can be relied upon, a matter I note has been raised by third parties and the Highways Authority.

To increase reliance on informal passing places that cannot be guaranteed as being available in perpetuity would be inappropriate, and would risk additional conflicts between traffic should they become unavailable. Further, the increase in traffic on these narrow rural lanes would exacerbate conflicts between two-way traffic and bring about highway safety risks for all users, particularly given the size and commercial nature of the traffic generated.

The lack of accident data along the proposed routes to the site is unsurprising given the low levels of baseline traffic prior to the appeal development commencing. Nevertheless, I am aware of a collision that occurred in the AM peak10 in January 2021, just a short distance to the west of the northern route on [address], apparently due to a lack of reaction time in respect of approaching vehicles. This indicates that the winding rural character of the roads can be hazardous even at low traffic levels, and that additional traffic would intensify these risks.

I am mindful that the site’s previous use as a poultry farm would have had associated vehicles operating from the site. Details are not before me to allow for a meaningful comparison. Without evidence to show to the contrary, I consider it unlikely that the vehicle movements associated with the historical use would have been as frequent as those proposed as part of this appeal.

Given my findings above, I am not satisfied that the effects on highway safety can be fully mitigated. Neither option for routing vehicles to the site would negate these concerns which go beyond driver inconvenience and result in unacceptable harm to highway safety. This is contrary to [name] TR01, TR02, EC04(C), HOU12(2) and COM01(m). Amongst other things, these policies require development to promote and improve safety, avoid inappropriate traffic generation and proposals that compromise highway safety. It follows that it would also run counter to Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which indicates that development should be refused on highway safety grounds where there would be unacceptable impacts on highway safety. 10 between 08:00 to 09:00

The appeal site comprises a former farmyard containing modern agricultural buildings at [site address] , located within the parish of Garvestone but outside any defined settlement boundary or designated employment area. It is therefore regarded as being within the open countryside.

BLP Policy EC04 sets out that proposals for employment uses outside of the identified General Employment Areas and allocated sites will be permitted where: (a) it is demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites available on identified or allocated employment sites; and/or (b) there are particular reasons for the development not being located on an established or allocated employment site; and (c) the development of the site would not adversely affect the type and volume of traffic generated.

The evidence indicates that the appellant’s business operates (or previously did) from Bowthorpe Employment Area in Norwich, and that this appeal scheme would enable relocation of their established civil engineering business. It is advanced that there are no sequentially preferable sites. However, little evidence is presented to support this assertion. For example, no information is before me on why the existing premises are deficient, or why Bowthorpe Employment Area cannot accommodate the business any longer. Although it is stated that the operational nature of the business including storage and use of large machinery is not well suited to General Employment Areas, where activities could affect amenity or operational efficiency, the specific difficulties have not been clearly articulated.

Nor has it been specifically demonstrated what alternative sites were considered. Rather, the evidence suggests that the primary reason for relocation is its proximity to the appellant’s residence at the adjacent farmhouse. This is a matter of convenience rather than a need. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the proposal accords with parts (a) or (b) of BLP Policy EC04 and I have already concluded that the proposal would be contrary to its part (c) in respect of the type and volume of traffic generated.

To deliver sustainable development in Breckland, BLP Policy GEN01 seeks to direct jobs and growth towards the most sustainable locations, contributing towards the economy and jobs in rural areas, helping to achieve the right balance throughout the district.

With 30 employees operating from the site, the proposal constitutes an employment development. Anecdotally it is claimed that employee travel distances will be reduced. However, no comparative analysis to show this has been provided. As the Bowthorpe Employment Area is said to be in Norwich, a more sustainable built-up area, it is far more likely that given its position away from any settlement or built-up area, employees of the relocated business would have to travel further to work. This rural location, accessed by narrow country lanes devoid of footpaths and street lighting together with the lack of public transport serving the site, means that employees have little choice than to travel by private car, a matter acknowledged by the appellant.

I note the Framework expects planning decisions to recognise that sites to meet local business needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. It goes on to explain that in these circumstances, it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable.

In this case, the local business needs have not been clearly demonstrated, particularly with regards to the need for this rural location. Furthermore, its inability to prioritise more sustainable modes of transport, supports the concerns that the site is not a sustainable location for the proposal, contrary to the Framework and [name] TR01, TR02 and GEN01. Amongst other things, these policies seek to minimise the need to travel by locating development wherever possible to be accessible to sustainable transport modes.

Drawing the above together, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal requires a rural location. Therefore, I find that the site is not a suitable location for the development having regard to the spatial strategy and accessibility. This brings the scheme into conflict with [name] GEN01 and EC04, the objectives of which I have already outlined. It also conflicts with BLP Policy GEN05 which states development outside the defined settlement boundaries will only be acceptable where it is compliant with all relevant policies set out in the development plan.

Whilst not explicitly referred to by the Council, I find the scheme also runs counter to the Local Transport Plan 4 Strategy 2021-2036, which is part of the development plan. Contrary to this Strategy, the appeal site is not in a location that promotes active travel with good links to local services, nor does it contribute to the aims of reducing traffic generation by private car and ensuring greener transport solutions.

The NIAR considers the noise from operational activity at the appeal site. It identifies the closest noise-sensitive receptors are Wyvern farmhouse located approximately 40m northwest of the site, and beyond that a dwelling known as Brookside, which lies just beyond the site entrance said to be around 100m away.

To avoid the likelihood of noise impacts from the operational activities at the site, the NIAR recommends two measures: 1) a noise management plan, and 2) a 3m high acoustic barrier located between the farmhouse and the appeal site alongside the northwest and western boundaries. Whilst a noise management plan could be subject to a planning condition, as I have already set out, I am unable to have regard to the acoustic fencing. It would be development in its own right that may have wider implications requiring further assessment. The acoustic barrier is described as a conservative approach to mitigation. Without mitigation, the NIAR suggests that operational noise would present a ‘low impact’ for properties over 100m and those closer would be on the threshold of an ‘adverse impact’.

[name] note the farmhouse is within the same ownership as the appeal site such that noise levels would be within the gift of occupiers to control to a certain extent, the same cannot be said for the impact on Brookside. At around 100m away, this appears to be at the threshold of whether it would constitute a ‘low’ or ‘adverse’ impact.

Moreover, the NIAR is dated 26 January 2026 with survey work having been undertaken during the previous week. However, there is nothing before me in evidence to state whether, on the dates of the survey, the business had fully relocated to the site. I cannot be certain therefore that it is fully representative of the business activities. Additionally, the scope of the NIAR does not in any way address the effect of the traffic movements on any of these noise-sensitive receptors, or indeed on any of the dwellings along the principal access routes to the site.

Consequently, I cannot be certain that the noise associated with the development, would be adequately mitigated. This brings the scheme into conflict with BLP Policy COM03 which seeks to protect residential amenity from unacceptable effects, including noise and nuisance. It is also contrary to the Framework, insofar as it does not demonstrate a high standard of amenity for existing occupiers or that significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise would be avoided.

My attention is drawn to [name] EC04 and HOU12 which, amongst other things support the expansion of existing businesses in rural locations. As this scheme does not have planning permission to operate from the site, it cannot benefit from being considered as an existing business in a rural area such that, in this regard, these policies are not directly relevant.

As a former poultry farm, the site is excluded from the definition of previously developed land (PDL) in Annex 2 of the Framework. Nevertheless, there would be clear sustainability benefits from reusing existing buildings through conversion, to which I attach considerable weight.

The appellant advances a number of benefits. These include the improved security of expensive and desirable machinery and improved business viability by reducing storage costs associated with Bowthorpe Employment Area. However, this is not supported by evidence to show whether theft has been an issue previously, or what alternative security measures have been explored and found ineffective, or that this is the only means of achieving these benefits. No viability information has been presented either. Therefore, I attribute only limited weight to these matters.

Sustainability advantages are said to derive from the site’s central location within its service catchment. However, the catchment area described is not clearly defined and is not supported by a map or any robust evidence that shows that this site is preferable than other employment sites or how this has reduced travel or otherwise made operational improvements. Therefore, this also attracts only limited weight.

[name] am invited to give positive weight to the economic benefits, including local employment for 30 employees, there is no evidence before me that employment levels would increase overall as a result of the proposal. As a relocation, the implication is that they are existing employees simply transferred from another premises. Those economic benefits are already being realised elsewhere in what appears to be a more suitable location, so the additional positive effect on the local economy is limited.

The claim that the appeal improves the nearby Public Rights of Way has not been substantiated in any way, such that I attach no weight to this.

Together, I afford the totality of the benefits considerable positive weight, primarily from the reuse of the buildings as an existing resource. However, I have found harm to highway safety, from the site’s unsuitable location and from noise effects on the living conditions of local residents. Together, these attract significant weight.

In my judgement the harms clearly outweigh the benefits, and the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons I have set out, the appeal should be dismissed.