Appeal 6005549

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 4no. camping pods, of 16ft long x 8ft wide (4.9m x 2.4m) and associated water tank to the rear car park of [site address] public house at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03300/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The named appellant details on the appeal form differ from the applicant details which are set out on the application form that was submitted to the Council by virtue of the spelling of the first name. I am however content that the appellant has the authority in order for the appeal to proceed. As an appeal can only ordinarily proceed in the name of the applicant, it is those details which are included in the banner heading above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties by way of noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises part of the car park which is set to the rear of [site address] [address] and letting rooms (the [address]), and a stove shop. The beer garden for the [address] is set mainly to its side, beyond which is a residential property known as [address]. The rear garden and structures associated with this neighbouring property are found next to the boundary with the car park, and are set at a lower ground level. The boundary itself is defined by vegetation and some fencing. There is also a grass verged area between this boundary and the car park, which contains some trees.

On the other side of the site, the nearest residential properties are set well forward of the car park, separated from the [address] itself by the access off [site address] . A Public Right of Way (PRoW) passes through the access and car park to Sicklinghall Park to the rear, where there are buildings and a field used for grazing, beyond a well contained boundary with the site.

While the proposed camping pods would be small structures with limited space for day to day activities for guests, there is some potential for noise and disturbance through carrying out these activities, comings and goings and vehicular movements, as well as cumulative impacts with the existing [address] activities. As such, the appellant submitted a Noise Management Plan (NMP) during the course of the planning application which includes measures to manage risks and awareness by guests, as well as dealing with complaints.

It is not in dispute there would not be a technical breach of defined acceptable noise limits. Assessing noise is not though solely a technical exercise, and its subjective nature means there is not a simple relationship between the noise levels and the impact on those affected. It needs to be considered in the context of what is proposed, the likely sources of noise, the relationship with neighbouring properties and the measures set out in the NMP.

The proposal would be a modest development and the nearest proposed camping pod would be well set off the boundary with the rear garden of [address] and its associated structures, even though the boundary enclosure with this property is not of any great acoustic quality. It would be well away from the house itself, which is considerably nearer the beer garden. The proposal would also be some distance away from other residential properties, and set off the boundaries with associated outdoor space. In addition, there is no substantive evidence before me of any alleged effect from noise on Sicklinghall Park to the rear, or on any local businesses.

The NMP would further limit the potential for significant adverse noise effects. These include that quiet hours are to be enforced in line with the licencing conditions of the [address], no group bookings would be entertained and that guests would be made aware of the need to limit noise disturbance, including through the booking terms and conditions. Encouraging guests to use the facilities of the [address] rather than the proposed camping pods would be unlikely to be enforceable, but this would be largely self-regulatory by virtue of their small size and the limited internal facilities.

While clearly if a complaint is lodged under the NMP the noise disturbance would have already occurred, guests would be blocked from future bookings if they do not abide with the terms and conditions. Overall, the NMP represents a proportionate approach to managing the noise risks associated with the proposal. Through the imposition of a planning condition, it would also be binding on any future business owners. Its measures would adequately protect living conditions and so if the proposed camping pods would be of a lightweight construction and lack acoustic mitigation as regards internal noise, this would not render the proposal unacceptable.

[address] itself generates its own noise through its customers, deliveries, comings and goings, vehicular movements, plant and machinery, and the use of the beer garden. The proposal would though be located at the opposite end of the car park and so it would be unlikely that unacceptable cumulative effects would occur, with the separation distance involved. While access onto [site address] would be shared, the noise from likely additional vehicular movements would be modest.

The moderate size of the proposal and the NMP measures would limit any additional disturbance at more sensitive times such as at night and during the summer, when the windows of the neighbouring properties may be open. Beyond the controls that are set out in the NMP, no further noise measures are required. The proposal would be in an appropriate location, compatible with neighbouring land uses and where noise impacts can be adequately controlled. In coming to my views, I have also considered the matters that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had raised during the consideration of the planning application, including the need for an NMP.

I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties by way of noise. Accordingly, it would comply with Policy HP4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 - 2035 (2020) where it states that proposals should be designed to ensure that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours, amenity considerations will include the impacts of development on noise, and the individual and cumulative impacts of development proposals on amenity will be considered.

The proposal would also accord with paragraphs 135 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) where they concern a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, and development should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life.

The site lies within the Green Belt. The main parties agree that the proposal would not be inappropriate development. It would comply with the exception under paragraph 154 g) of the Framework which concerns limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The site constitutes previously developed land and the proposal would be well enclosed and small scale, so substantial harm to the openness would not occur.

The likely level of traffic generation from the proposal would be modest and unlikely to result in safety and congestion issues, and while there would be a reduction in parking spaces for the [address] the loss would be small in the context of what is a large car park. The spaces that would be lost would also be furthest away from the [address] itself. In character and appearance terms, the camping pods would have a shepherd’s hut type appearance. There are a variety of different types of buildings and structures in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, including agricultural, and the proposal would be itself located in the car park. It would not be unacceptable in these terms, also when views from the PRoW are considered. The effects of lighting can ably be controlled through a condition, while the siting on the car park and the nature of the use would be unlikely to give rise to undue security and privacy issues.

The Council has confirmed that the site is private rather than in public ownership and I see no reason to disagree as the application form confirms this land ownership. A number of other matters raised are more reasonably related to the operation of the [address] itself, such as proximity to refuse bins, rodents and broken glass. [address] facilities themselves would be used for waste collection. Public consultation matters do not in themselves mean that the proposal would be unacceptable and the same applies for public benefits, notwithstanding there would likely be some small local economic benefit. None of these matters alter my conclusion.

In addition to a condition concerning the statutory timescale for implementation, I have imposed a condition concerning the approved plans in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition limiting occupation to holiday accommodation, as the proposal would not provide suitable living conditions for uncontrolled residential occupation. A condition is also imposed concerning the measures set out in the NMP for the reason of protecting the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearest residential properties by way of noise and disturbance. Conditions are also imposed so that satisfactory drainage and water supply arrangements are made and also to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearest residential properties through lighting controls.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed, subject to the

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: A101 Existing Site Plan and Section, A102 [name] and Section, A103 Location Plan.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use other than as holiday accommodation and shall not be used as the sole and principal residence by any occupier.

The development hereby permitted shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the list of measures that are set out in the Noise Management Plan for short let shepherd`s huts situated on land at : [site address] , [name], Sicklinghall, Wetherby [postcode] prepared by MGI.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the means of drainage and water supply have been implemented in accordance with plan no. A102 [name] and Section and shall thereafter be retained.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting on the development hereby permitted, full details including height, design, location and intensity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting installation shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.