Appeal 6006133

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was revised by the Council during the application determination period. However, no explicit proof of the appellant’s agreement to the revision has been provided. Therefore, I have determined this appeal based on the original description, which I consider to be accurate based on the development sought by the appellant.

I acknowledge the evidence about whether or not the appeal site is lawfully in storage use. However, I have determined the appeal proposal before me which is described as “Proposed construction of storage unit new build”. It is open to the appellant to apply for a determination of existing or proposed lawfulness under section 191 or 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990). It is not my place to determine such matters in determining an appeal under section 78 of the Act.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to national and local planning policy; and • If the proposed development is inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The proposal involves the construction of a storage building within Use Class B8 on a site adjacent to an existing storage building within the Green Belt.

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless a specific exception set out in paragraph 154(a to h) applies. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that the proposal meets an exception under this paragraph.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the criteria at paragraph 155(a to d) apply, although criterion (d) would not apply in this case as the appeal proposal is not major development involving the provision of housing.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area. I have no reason to disagree and therefore the proposal would accord with paragraph 155(a) of the Framework.

Paragraph 155(b) of the Framework requires there to be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. Reference is made to Council studies which purportedly set out a districtwide need for modern, high quality Use Class B8 warehousing and distribution uses, although copies of these studies have not been provided as part of the appeal. Although the proposal would provide new Use Class B8 floorspace, I am not provided with substantive information on the nature of the proposed use or the resulting level of jobs that demonstrates that it would address a defined need. As a result, I cannot be certain that the proposal would meet a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, and therefore it does not accord with paragraph 155(b) of the Framework.

Paragraph 155(c) of the Framework relates to whether the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. These paragraphs seek to focus development in areas which are or can be made sustainable, and, amongst other things, seek to prioritise sustainable transport modes taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location; ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and ensure that any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision-led approach. Paragraph 011 of the Green Belt Planning Practice Guidance sets out guidance on how to establish whether Green Belt land is in a sustainable location, including that this should be determined in light of local context and site or development-specific considerations.

I am satisfied, in principle, that the location is acceptable given that Use Class B8 development would be dependent on private vehicle movements by its very nature, and the site is located relatively close to the strategic road network. However, no substantive evidence has been provided which demonstrates that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved, or that any significant impacts on the transport network or on highway safety have been mitigated. As a result, the proposal would not accord with paragraph 155(c) of the Framework.

Policy DM10 of the Rochford District Council Local Development Framework: Development Management Plan (December 2014) (the DM Plan) states that commercial development in the Green Belt may be appropriate on previously developed land (defined as per the Framework) where specific policy criteria are met.

[name] acknowledge evidence of previous storage activity on the site, given the uncertainty regarding the lawful use of the site I cannot be certain that the appeal site has been lawfully developed in the past. Therefore, the proposal would not meet the definition of previously developed land set out in the Framework and consequently would not accord with Policy DM10 of the DM Plan.

Notwithstanding this, even if the site was considered previously developed, the proposal would not accord with all other criteria in Policy DM10, particularly criterion (i) that requires proposals for commercial uses to demonstrate that locating the proposed development on employment land, in a town centre or edge-of-centre location would not be appropriate, viable and/or deliverable. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that potential sites in these locations have been considered.

In conclusion, the proposal would not meet an exception set out in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework, therefore it would constitute inappropriate development. The proposal would also not be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the DM Plan which insofar as is relevant to this case is consistent with the Framework.

The proposal would accord with paragraph 88 of the Framework by enabling the expansion of a business in a rural area. However, as the specific employment benefits of the proposal have not been quantified, this benefit would only have limited weight. The proposal would also assist in tidying up the site and support the development of under-utilised land, which are benefits that attract limited weight.

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the resulting harm should be given substantial weight in accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework. This harm would not be clearly outweighed by the other considerations and therefore very special circumstances to justify allowing the appeal have not been demonstrated.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.