Appeal 6006813

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form. However, it is clear from the evidence before me, particularly the [site address] Highways response from Transport Planning Practice and photographs, that the development relates to the storage of commercial vehicles including coaches and cars. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

At the time of my site visit, the development had been carried out and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans.

The main issue is whether the site is an appropriate location for the development with particular regard to the local strategy for the distribution of development.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the site lies outside of a defined development boundary as identified within the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 (LP). I have no reason to disagree.

LP paragraphs 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 clarify that the proposed local strategy for the distribution of development takes account of the benefits of concentrating most developments in locations easily accessible to each other with a choice of transport modes. Furthermore, it states that the focus of the majority of new development will be in larger settlements which have more jobs and services. As a result, LP Policy SUS2 states that development outside of defined development boundaries will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints, and be restricted to a number of stated uses.

These stated uses include new employment with related LP Policy ECON1 stating that such uses will generally be supported within or at the edge of a settlement; through the intensification or extension of existing premises; as part of farm diversification, through the re-use or replacement of an existing building; in a rural location where this is essential for that type of business, and for live-work developments. Given the location of the site a considerable distance from the nearest settlements comprising a former residential garden and given that the development does not comprise the re-use or replacement of existing buildings, the development does not gain support from the first four bullet points to LP Policy ECON1 i) or from ECON1 ii).

With regard to the final bullet point to LP Policy ECON1 i), there is no substantive evidence before me demonstrating that a rural location is essential to support the related business. In relation to this, I note that the business also has premises in Yeovil.

Additionally, the supporting text to LP Policy ECON1 at paragraphs 4.1.1, 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 clarify that new employment development should be appropriate to its location to reduce the need to travel. Given that the appeal site is located a considerable distance from the nearest settlements off narrow unlit country lanes or the busy A30 that is a duel, unlit carriageway without pavements, the location of the appeal site is reliant on the use of the car such that it would not reduce the need to travel. As a result, the development does not gain support from the final bullet point to LP Policy ECON1.

I have had regard to the presence of a large commercial premises to the west of the site off the A30, and nearby commercial development to the east comprising car sales and a Chinese restaurant. However, I do not have full details of the planning history and justification for these premises with the Council advising that they were granted under a different development plan and/or for uses related to the A30. Given this, I do not find these proposals directly comparable, and their presence do not in themselves justify the location of further development outside of the defined development boundaries. Furthermore, I am required to consider the appeal on its merits and determine in accordance with the current development plan policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It follows from the above that the appeal site is not an appropriate location for the development with particular regard to the local strategy for the distribution of development. As such, it is contrary to [name] SUS2 and ECON1, the aims of which I have outlined above. For the same reasons, the development is contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that promotes sustainable transport and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

I have had regard to the appellant advising that the land was previously unused with the development representing a more efficient and effective use of the land. While this may be the case, these matters do not address or overcome the conflict with the LP as identified above. Furthermore, they do not outweigh the harm from the location of the site outside of the defined development boundaries in a location reliant upon the use of the motor vehicle. As such, I give these matters little weight.

I have also had regard to the lack of dispute between the main parties that, subject to conditions, the development would not result in harm to highway safety, living conditions, or to the character and appearance of the area, pollution or ecology. However, as these are requirements of local planning policy and national guidance, I give them very limited weight.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.