Appeal 6005830

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for provision of [name] (Class E), parking and associated works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0001802/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 9 to [address], with particular regard to outlook, and potential for noise and disturbance.

The appeal site forms part of a wider filling station complex that is positioned at a busy junction. Located on an extensive area of hardstanding, including wide parking bays and adjacent to a row of electric vehicle charging points, I saw that the site was in use for parking associated with the wider complex with a regular turnover of vehicles. Adjacent to these parking bays is a high brick wall that marks the boundary with Nos. 9 to 12.

A single storey building with a shallow pitched roof would be positioned in the approximate location of the existing parking bays. Between the rear of this building and the high brick wall, a landscaped buffer would be provided incorporating tree and shrub planting, that would be enclosed at either end by 1.[address] boarded fencing.

Nos. 9 to 12 are single storey dwellings with windows to habitable rooms that look out onto modest rear gardens, which back onto the high screen wall along the boundary. These gardens are at a slightly lower level than the appeal site. I viewed the appeal site from the rear gardens of nos. 10 and 11, which are located directly behind the position of the proposed building. I found these gardens to be tranquil spaces that felt detached from the adjoining commercial site. A major contributing factor was the extensive landscaping in these gardens that extends to a considerable height above the high brick wall. [name]. 12 has some landscaping visible above the high screen wall and I could not see any at No. 9, though there is a high evergreen hedge along the side boundary with No. 10, these dwellings are positioned to either side of the proposed building and landscaped buffer and not directly behind.

Due to this existing arrangement, to be complemented by new landscaping on the appeal site, and the height of the new building, views from Nos. 10 and 11 of the development would be limited. Therefore, the direct outlook from nos. 9 to 12, including sense of enclosure, would not substantially alter from the existing arrangement of landscaping noticeably exceeding the height of, or the absence of a building behind, the high brick wall.

Representing a new destination within the wider filling station complex, it is likely that the proposal will attract a greater number of comings and goings than currently experienced on the appeal site and thereby the potential for an increase in noise and disturbance. However, the position of the building would move these activities further away from the boundary than the existing parking bays, which could also generate noise and disturbance to Nos. 9 to 12 by people congregating outside vehicles, doors slamming and engines starting. Moreover, the building would also provide a physical shield from outside activities, including the entrance to the building. Taking all these factors into account, I am satisfied that any increase in noise and disturbance would be limited and suitably mitigated.

My attention has been drawn to a previous proposal on the site for, inter alia, jet wash bays that was dismissed at appeal1. Whilst this is a different scheme to the proposed development before me, there are some similarities in terms of the relationship of a structure and landscaping to Nos 9 to 12, and I have considered the Inspector’s findings in that particular case. However, in addition to different activities on the site, there are material differences in terms of; the current proposed building being lower in height than the jet wash canopies and positioned further away from the boundary; the landscaping scheme consisting of a more native approach resulting in a less dense/solid effect; and no provision of a 3m high acoustic fence. Consequently, direct comparisons with this previously dismissed appeal on site are limited and it has not swayed me away from my findings.

Whilst the existing landscaping within the rear gardens of Nos 9 to 12 could be removed at any time at the wish of the occupiers of those dwellings, I have not been presented with any compelling reason as to why such landscaping would be removed.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 9 to 12, with particular regard to outlook, and potential noise and disturbance. Policies DE1 and DS3 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan 2017, referred to in the reason for refusal, relate to high quality design and reflecting the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I have found that these policies do not directly relate to the main issue surrounding living conditions. Nevertheless, the proposal accords with the Framework, which requires the creation of a high standard of amenity for existing 1 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/U4610/W/23/3332470 users and for decisions to ensure new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on living conditions.

A wide range of other concerns have been raised by interested parties including, but not limited to: highway safety, inadequate parking, the need for the development, and noise from extractor fans and condensers.

The Council’s officer report addresses these concerns, including relevant consultee responses, and they did not form part of the reason for refusal, which I have dealt with in the assessment above. There is no compelling evidence before me that would lead me to come to a different conclusion to the Council on these matters.

Comments have been made by both parties over the handling of the application. This is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council, which the appellant has been given the opportunity to comment on. I have amended the wording where necessary in the interest of precision and clarity. I have also had regard to the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of clarity. Inclusion of the submitted Sequential Assessment within the approved plans condition, as suggested by the Council, is not necessary as the purpose of the report was to demonstrate the proposal’s compliance against the sequential test for main town centre uses.

Conditions are attached in relation to opening and delivery hours, and the provision of the fence to enclose the landscaped buffer in the interests of the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The appellant has suggested that the delivery hours are extend to 10:00pm, rather than 08:00pm, daily. Although it is claimed that the filling station operates 24 hours a day, there is no substantiated evidence that the requested later delivery time would reflect deliveries elsewhere on the wider complex and not have a harmful impact on neighbours. Therefore, I have used the delivery hours suggested by the Council.

It is necessary to apply a condition covering landscaping in the interest of character and appearance.

Finally, I have imposed a condition restricting the permitted development rights of the building in the interests of clarity and to adequately control the use of the site and to ensure it serves its intended purpose.

I recognise that allowing this appeal could affect the living standards or living conditions of nearby residents to the site. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has been engaged in reaching my decision. They are qualified rights, and interference may be justified when in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key. I have found that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of local residents and is in accordance with the Framework. I am satisfied that a grant of planning permission would not unacceptably interfere with local residents’ right to a private and family life and home. It is proportionate in the circumstances to allow the appeal.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. WALLS-FPS-MFG-286-P-08 Location Plan, WALLS-FPS-MFG- 286-P-04 [name], WALL-FPS-MFG-286-P-05 [name], WALLS-FPS-MFG-286-P-06 [name], WALLS-FPS-MFG-286-P-07 [name], and [name] 801168.

The premises shall only be open for customers between the hours of 06:00am to 08:00pm on any day.

Deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the premises only between the hours of 06:00am to 08:00pm on any day.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

The premises shall be used for Use Class E (a) and (b) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

Prior to the first occupation of the development, the proposed boundary fence enclosing the area to the rear of the building shall be installed and retained afterwards for the lifetime of the development. **END OF SCHEDULE**