Appeal 6007062

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the banner heading is taken from the application form. The Council’s decision refers to ‘change of use from paddock (agricultural) to motor cars and light vans storage (sui generis) for up to 250 vehicles in association with the adjoining car sales, storage and preparation use’. This description is also reflected in the appellant’s appeal form. I have therefore had regard to this revised description in my assessment.

At the time of my site visit, I observed that the development has been carried out. Nevertheless, my assessment has been undertaken on the basis of the plans before me.

The main issues are: • whether or not the appeal site is a suitable location for the development, with particular reference to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside; • the effect on the existing access arrangement with particular reference to highway safety; and • whether or not the development meets mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements.

Policy LP2 of the Peterborough Local Plan 2016 - 2036 (2019) (LP) directs development to settlements within the hierarchy that offer the best access to services and facilities. The appeal site lies outside of any defined settlements and is physically and visually detached from nearby settlements, including Thorney. Apart from adjoining buildings and land associated with [site address] , it is surrounded by open agricultural land and is therefore in the countryside for the purposes of decision making.

Policy LP11 of the LP states that in the countryside, the expansion of an existing employment use on its current site will be acceptable for employment uses within B1 to B8, subject to criteria p. – v. being met. Supporting text recognises that successful rural enterprises located in the open countryside may need to expand on their current site. However, such development needs to be highly sensitive to its surroundings.

The appeal site, known as [site address] , lies off [site address] , a rural route characterised by sporadic development, including occasional dwellinghouses, business uses and farm buildings. [name] runs alongside part of the road, with long-distance open views across a relatively flat agricultural landscape achievable. Grass verges, hedgerows and occasional matures trees reinforce the rural character, and despite some detracting features such as overhead lines, the area retains a spacious and cohesive countryside appearance.

The site is accessed via an existing commercial access which leads to an area of hardcore enclosed primarily by close-boarded fencing to the rear of the established residential and commercial use at [site address] . A lawful development certificate issued in 20061 confirmed a mixed residential and car sales use on part of [site address] , including restrictions preventing the display of vehicles to the general public and limiting numbers on part of the site to no more than 25 vehicles at any one time.

The evidence indicates that much of the appeal site was formerly paddock, distinct from the established commercial use to the front. The open and undeveloped nature of the majority of the appeal site prior to development therefore made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

Despite its set back position and partial screening by existing buildings and vegetation, the appeal site remains highly visible, particularly in views travelling south along [site address] , in part due to its lower level relative to the road. Its open and flat nature also makes it conspicuous in wider views from the surrounding countryside. The close-boarded fencing, together with attached lighting columns, is uncharacteristic of rural boundary treatments and does not fully screen the parked vehicles. The extensive area of hardcore with large numbers of parked vehicles gives rise to an industrial appearance that is at odds with, and causes significant harm to the prevailing rural character of the landscape. 1 Appeal ref: APP/J0540/X/06/2005735

The appellant indicates that fencing, lighting and landscaping could be secured by condition. However, I am not satisfied that this would overcome the harm identified. No details have been provided regarding the location, form or effectiveness of any landscaping and such planting would in any event take several years to mature and adequately filter views of the development or address its unacceptable visual prominence. This is consistent with the findings of a previous Inspector in 20082 in relation to a caravan storage proposal at [site address] (the caravan storage appeal).

It is unclear whether or not the use falls within Class B or is [name]. However, even if considered as Class B8, I am not satisfied that it complies with the requirements of Policy LP11 of the LP. This development represents a substantial intensification of the existing use and a significant encroachment into the countryside. It is therefore not consistent in scale with its rural location, does not enhance the character of the landscape in which it is situated and causes harm to the open nature of the countryside, contrary to criteria p., r. and s. of Policy LP11 of the LP. Although there is no dispute between the main parties regarding criteria t., q., u., and v. of Policy LP11 of the LP, including in relation to accessibility and the effect on local community services, this does not overcome the clear and fundamental conflict with the other criteria identified.

Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that sites to meet local business needs in rural areas may have to be found beyond existing settlements. While the development represents an expansion of an existing and established employment use at [site address] , I am not satisfied that a specific operational or functional need for the considerable storage area to be located in this countryside location has been demonstrated.

I conclude that the development is not a suitable location for the development and that it results in harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. In this regard, it conflicts with policies LP2, LP11 and LP16 of the LP insofar as they seek to ensure development in the countryside positively contributes to the character and local distinctiveness of the area. For the same reasons, it is also contrary to the Framework, including paragraphs 135 and 187 which seek to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character and recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

I observed during my site visit that [site address] (B1040) is a well-trafficked route. While the development utilises the unrestricted existing access serving the established business, it could nonetheless result in additional vehicle movements.

The access is insufficient in width along its full length to accommodate two-way vehicle movements, including cars. Even if activity levels are relatively modest, at around ten vehicle movements per day as indicated by the appellant, it cannot be assumed that arrivals and departures would not coincide. Any restriction to this level would also be difficult to enforce and may be exceeded. In such circumstances, conflicting movements at levels over and above previous levels could occur, necessitating vehicles to wait or reverse on the highway. Given the proximity of the access to the junction with [site address] , together with the prevailing traffic conditions, such manoeuvres has the potential to impede the free flow of traffic and give rise to unacceptable risks to highway safety. 2 Appeal ref: APP/J0540/A/08/2091612

Although the section of [site address] on egress is relatively straight and affords some visibility in both directions, no technical evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the access can indeed operate safely overall. In particular, there is no transport assessment, robust traffic generation data, visibility splay drawings or swept-path analyses before me. In the absence of such information, I cannot be satisfied that the development does not give rise to risk of harm to the function and safety of the highway.

While the appellant has indicated a willingness to accept conditions restricting the use of car transporters or heavy goods vehicles, this would not address the potential conflict between other vehicles using the access. Such restrictions may also be difficult to enforce. No substantive justification has been provided for a personal permission, nor how this would overcome the harm identified. Given these uncertainties, it would not be appropriate to address risk of harm through the imposition of conditions.

I note that the caravan storage appeal was not dismissed on highway safety grounds. However, that decision was made in a different development plan context, and there is insufficient information before me regarding the scale of that proposal to enable a direct comparison.

I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development does not result in an unacceptable effect on the existing access arrangement and upon highway safety. In this regard, the development conflicts with Policy LP13 of the LP which requires appropriate provision to be made for safe access to, from and within the site by all users. This aligns with paragraph 116 of the Framework which requires development to be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Planning Practice Guidance advises that where unauthorised degradation of onsite habitat has occurred between 30 January 2020 and the date of the planning application, the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat should be calculated based on the condition of the habitat on the date immediately prior to such degradation. The appellant’s Baseline Biodiversity Assessment includes a pre-degradation map and overview and advises that this was used to generate a pre-works biodiversity unit value. A BNG metric has also been provided. In such an instance, the BNG would be secured by the deemed statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition.

Given that I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not sought clarification regarding indicative habitat proposals. Nevertheless, the submitted metric and supporting information indicates that the development could achieve the required uplift in biodiversity value, as required by Article 7 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

I conclude that the development could meet mandatory BNG requirements. In this regard, the development complies with Policy LP28 of the LP which requires development proposals to deliver a net gain in biodiversity.

It is not disputed that, as former paddock land, the development does not result in the direct loss of farmland. The Council has identified no other harm including in relation to living conditions or flood risk. These matters are neutral factors and do not alter my findings on the main issue.

The development provides a benefit to an existing business, supporting employment and the local economy. However, in the context of a single business, such benefits are modest in scale and there is nothing to suggest that there is a critical need for the storage area to be located in the countryside which conflicts with the requirements of the development plan. As such, these factors do not justify the harm identified.

The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.