Appeal 6004438

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the access to the development is suitable; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of surrounding occupiers.

[site address] is a single width, unmade private access road. It serves a number of residential properties along its length, along with the employment units adjacent to the appeal site. It is generally straight, with good visibility and there are passing places along its length. Partway along, it crosses [address] which connects two housing estates.

However, from the representations before me and the red line plan accompanying the proposal, it appears that the passing places fall outwith the appeal site and the land within the appellant’s control. It is therefore not possible to rely on these as being available for vehicles using the access. While the appellant shows one marked formal passing place and another informal space in photographs, the position of these is not indicated on the plans before me.

The proposal is for a modest number of relatively small containers. It would give rise to a very limited level of additional vehicle movements, with activity likely to be spread throughout the hours of operation. However, even if aimed at small scale or residential users, there is a reasonable likelihood users would be using small vans. Any additional vehicle movements would increase the potential for conflict between vehicles passing in opposite directions. In the event the passing places were not available, this would be likely to result in long reversing manoeuvres. This would not be an acceptable access arrangement.

Furthermore, were these manoeuvres to occur over [address], there would be an additional risk to the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. [name] do not consider there would otherwise be any undue risk to pedestrians in the area where drivers exercise due care and attention, given the straight road and generally good visibility along [site address] , this would not mitigate the risk that would arise during any reversing manoeuvres.

The land on which the passing places sit does not lie within the control of the appellant or the local highway authority. This is therefore not a matter which could be addressed by the use of a condition as I could not be certain that it would not prevent the development from being implemented.

It may be that increased use of the access could arise from the existing lawful use of the employment units. However, were this to be the case, it would further exacerbate the potential for conflict. The appellant has highlighted there are no recorded or known issues relating to vehicles passing on the access, however it is not clear to whom any concerns would be reported given the private nature of the access. It is also reasonable to assume that this is on the basis that the existing informal passing points are available, given their presence was apparent at my site visit. However, I cannot assume that these would continue to be available.

I note there is no objection from the local highway authority. However, their comments are clear they have not assessed [site address] . Their comments would therefore not change my assessment of the proposal which is related to the use of the access itself.

I therefore conclude that suitable access for the proposed development would not be achieved. The proposal would be contrary to Greater Norwich Local Plan (March 2024) Policy 2 and South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (October 2015) (DMPD) Policy DM 3.11 which taken together require development to ensure safe access and not endanger highway safety.

The access runs in close proximity to a number of residential properties. Although most properties benefitted from robust boundary treatments and landscaping, it is likely noise from the use of the access would be readily audible. In dry conditions, there may be dust given the unmade nature of the access. Together, these could result in some disturbance to surrounding residents.

However, the number of units would be limited and the proposal is likely to give rise to only a very low number of additional vehicle movements. There is already use of the access by a number of dwellings and businesses. The levels of noise and dust that would be generated by the additional vehicles would be unlikely to have a materially different effect to those that could be experienced at present. There is no substantive evidence before me that the proposal would give rise to vibration concerns given the likely nature of the vehicles that would use the proposed storage units.

Hours of operation of the units could be controlled by condition which would ensure additional vehicle movements were not taking place at unreasonable times. The operation of storage units would not have any effect on the living conditions of surrounding occupants given their location. I also note there is no objection from the Council’s Environmental Health officer, subject to conditions.

I therefore find the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. It would be in accordance with [name] 2.1 and DM 3.13 which together seek to protect and ensure a reasonable standard of amenity and ensure there would not be significantly detrimental levels of noise to nearby residents.

The Council has raised no objection to the principle of storage units in this location. No adverse landscape or visual effects have identified, nor have adverse effects on trees or heritage assets.

There would be economic benefits arising from the proposal. It would also support the formalisation of the car parking arrangements on the site which would benefit operators and customers of the employment units and potentially adjacent residential occupiers. I attach limited weight to these benefits.

I have been provided with other appeal decisions relating to self-storage units. However, neither of these decisions turned on the issue of the access to the site. They therefore would not alter my conclusion on this appeal. I have also been referred to the approval of dwellings along [site address] and the likely levels of vehicle movements. However, these decisions were taken a number of years ago. I have based my assessment on the evidence and development plan policies before me.

I have found that there would not be suitable access to the proposal. [name] have not found adverse effects on the living conditions of surrounding occupiers, nor any other adverse effects, these are to be expected of any well designed development. The benefits that would arise from the proposal would be of limited weight and would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate the decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.