Appeal 6005379

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the area’s green infrastructure, and • The effect of the proposal on biodiversity interests.

The appeal site is within a large industrial park on the outskirts of Telford. The site is at the head of the ‘ [site address] ’ cul-de-sac which includes a wide turning head for HGVs. An area of soft landscaping, including a row of trees, grass area and hedging, terminate views at the head of the road.

A small pedestrian gap, between a post and rail fence, enables access beyond onto ‘Halesfield 7’, connecting to a footway that provides access to routes to the west. From ‘Halesfield 7’, views of the hedging and trees to the rear of the application site contribute to a long run of vegetation that encloses the part of the estate served by ‘ [site address] ’. As such the vegetation, adjacent to the site, provides a pleasant range of planting that contributes to the verdant character of ‘Halesfield 7’. Consequently, the existing soft landscaping, especially the trees, make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed scheme consists of two containers. These would stand on pads within the grass area between a row of trees and hedging. The shipping container would be a height of around 2.59m and the catering container, whilst not dimensioned on plan, would be a similar height or slightly taller. Due to their scale these would be visible from both the main road and the cul-de-sac, despite the presence of landscaping. Set amongst the structural landscaping, the containers would intrude into this green setting, which currently provides a welcome relief from the hard development seen locally. As such, the erosion of its verdant character would diminish the visual quality of the linear landscaped corridor, and the proposal would not respond positively to its context.

Therefore, despite the industrial nature of the surrounding area, the site offers a pleasant green corridor that encloses the cul-de-sac from ‘Halesfield 7’ and differentiates it from the surrounding estate. Space would be limited around the proposed development for mitigating new planting and none is proposed within the scheme. As such, a condition to secure landscape screening would not address the adverse effects identified. Furthermore, whilst the proposed development would be temporary in nature and therefore reversible, it would cause visual harm whilst in place. As such, a condition seeking its temporary retention only, would not negate the adverse effects.

Accordingly, the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with policy BE1 of the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan [2018](LP). This requires development, among other matters, to respect and respond positively to its context and to demonstrate an integrated design approach combining building form and design with landscape and green infrastructure.

The requirement for [name] (BNG) is sought under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. As such, unless specifically exempt, the development would be subject to the mandatory Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) condition, which requires the delivery of at least 10% BNG. This can be achieved through on-site and/or off-site biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits.

The BGP condition excludes development that would not impact on a priority habitat, be less than [address] metres (e.g. 5m by 5m) of on-site habitat and 5 metres of linear habitats such as hedgerows. The scheme would place the containers within the roadside grassed areas. The larger container would be around 15sqm (6.05m x 2.44m) and the catering van (whilst not dimensioned on plan) would be substantially smaller. As such, the addition of the new footprint the subject of the development would be limited, being within the 25sqm threshold and would not impact on priority habitats, resulting in no significant biodiversity effect. Accordingly, due to the exemption, it appears that the BGP condition would not apply.

This view is taken on the understanding that trees would not be adversely affected by the proposal. The details of the delivery and installation of the containers, to protect adjacent tree and hedge planting, could be requested by the Council. This requirement could be addressed by the imposition of a condition had I been minded to allow the appeal.

Furthermore, whilst the Highway Authority raised no objection subject to the provision of three parking spaces, parking provision is not proposed as part of the scheme, and its absence did not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal. As such, the effect of any new parking provision on BNG considerations is not within the scope of this proposal.

Consequently, the proposal would result in no adverse effect on biodiversity interests. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with LP policies NE1 and NE2, which include the requirements for development to enhance existing features and to retain trees, hedgerows and woodland with biodiversity value.

It is reported that the scheme would employ two full-time and one part-time members of staff, gaining support from LP policy EC1. The appellant also asserts that the facility would provide essential welfare for the local workforce of the industrial estate. However, the small number of staff employed in the catering facility, and as the appellant has failed to demonstrate why the proposal should be regarded as ‘essential’, mean that these benefits would be of limited weight in favour of the scheme.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, raising conflict with the development plan. The limited gain to employment and subsequent compliance with LP policy EC1 would not outweigh the identified conflict. As such, material considerations do not outweigh the harm that would arise from the conflict with the development plan and the development plan as a whole.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.