Cory site appeal
| The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN SOU 7 372 6372 e-mail: enquiries@planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.ukDate19 OCT 2008 |
3. Policy CS2 of the SP aims to maintain and conserve the natural and built environment by measures including sustaining and enhancing the rural environment, through the conservation of countryside character and the protection of the countryside for its own sake. Policy C5 aims to protect the countryside by restricting new uses to those appropriate to the rural area and the strict control of new building outside existing settlements. It continues that new development should be well-related to existing patterns of development and of a scale, siting and design sympathetic to the rural landscape character. Policy RLP36 of the LP, which largely rolls forward Policy BDP28 of the previous Local Plan, quoted in the reason for refusal, does not allow development which would have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area as a result of such matters as noise and dust.
Appeal Decision APP/Z1585/A/05/1195474
Reasons
Countryside
4. The former oil storage depot, created to serve the adjacent wartime airfield but now disused, lies outside the village of Gosfield in the countryside. The proposed development on the site would include a new building which would be used for sorting material brought into the site and its recycling. The building would be 11m to the ridge with an area of about 943 sq, m and would be positioned centrally on the site. It would be substantial in terms of its scale and mass and in its elevated position from the road would be prominent in a number of public views in the locality.
5. The building would be seen from the entrance to the site, which could not be screened, and most of it would be seen in views from the public footpath which runs up the lane to Shardlowe's Farm, opposite the site. Views in this location would be across part of the Colne Valley Special Landscape Area. The roof area of the building would also be seen in views from both the north and south along the public footpath which runs between the rear of the site and an area of community woodland which is being established on the former airfield. It would appear as a particularly incongruent feature in views from the south, across a pleasant meadow, used for community recreation. Although there are a few mature trees on the site which would remain and would help to screen the proposed building, most of the vegetation on the site is shrubby and would not be of sufficient height to provide full screening.
6. In addition, the plant associated with concrete crushing would, in the Council's assessment, be about 4m high,. During times of concrete crushing this would need to be stationed in the area to the rear of the site closest to the public footpath which is currently open to the site, apart from a 1.5m bund to prevent trespass. This plant would be a large piece of industrial machinery which would be seen from both directions on the public footpath and would be out of place in the countryside. Noise from the operation, as discussed below, would have an adverse effect on the quiet enjoyment of those using the public footpath alongside the community woodland, which I was told is well-used, and the community recreation space.
7. A landscaping scheme is proposed with belts of planting along the footpath to the rear of the site, between the concrete crushing area and the rest of the site and along the private drive between the site and Orange Hall Lodge. However, the trees proposed would take some time, about 15 years in the Council's estimate, to grow to a size when they would screen the proposed development fully and during that time its adverse effects on the countryside would be apparent.
8. The appellant has argued that the proposed building would be similar in appearance to an agricultural building, but it would not be seen within the context of an agricultural enterprise and the nearest building to the proposal which would be seen in public views would be the single storey dwelling at Orange Hall Lodge. In addition, whilst the site is brownfield and a former employment site on which some existing buildings would be reused, an additional large new building in the countryside would not be in accordance with Government guidance in paragraph 1 (iv) of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7). This says that new building development in the countryside should be strictly controlled to protect its intrinsic character and beauty so that it may be enjoyed by all.
2Appeal Decision APP/Z1585/A/05/1195474
9. Therefore I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside, contrary to Policy W10E of the WP, Policies CS2 and C5 of the SP and PPSZ
Living conditions10. Concrete-crushing operations are proposed on the site, together with the unloading of skips and the use of 2 JCB machines to move material about, both inside the proposed new building and outside in the storage and concrete crushing areas. The effect of these activities on the nearest neighbours at Orange Hall Lodge, in terms of noise and dust, are the subject of objections by both the District Council and the Environment Agency. A noise impact assessment on the effects of the proposal on the nearest neighbour was submitted as part of the application. The methodology of the assessment was agreed between the main parties, although it included a relatively short time period for the monitoring of the noise from the concrete crusher. The level of background noise at the monitoring point was ascribed mainly to traffic noise on the A1017 outside the site and, during lulls in the traffic, noise from the industrial use at Orange Hall. This was averaged, rather than using the quietest period against which to measure the noise. At the Hearing, local people disputed whether the noise from Orange Hall would be heard but on the day of my visit a low level of noise from machinery was audible from this use at the rear of the site.11. There is also general agreement about the measurements obtained. The main area of dispute involves their interpretation, with regard to a correction factor applied to the noise from the concrete crushing operation. The appellants have said that this would take place over four hours between 10:00 and 15:00 hours and would not exceed 20 hours per month. Their argument continues that the correction factor should be applied since the activity would only take place over 4 hours in an 11 hour day and therefore its effect should be reduced. However, the Council say that the reference time period is one hour in BS4142:1997 and therefore limits set should be based on LAeq, i Hour rating levels. As concrete crushing activities would take place for more than the one hour measurement period the Council say that it is not necessary to make any adjustment. I concur with the Council's view. The concrete crushing would take place over a significant period of a day, even if it occurred only a few times in a month. If the adjustment were not made then the Council said at the Hearing that the noise level would be 7dB above the measured background level. The appellants' calculation is only slightly less at 6dB. If it were to be measured against the quietest background noise it would be 1 or 2 dB higher. BS4142:1997 says that at lOdB complaints are likely but that at 5dB the effect of a proposal is marginal. In this case there would be an increased likelihood of complaints being made12. Whilst a newer concrete crusher would be used on the site than was used in the survey and a fence between the site and Orange Hall Lodge could be erected as a sound barrier, I consider that the noise levels would still approach levels where complaints would be likely from the activity on the site. A letter of support says that concrete crushing had been carried out on the site for about 20 years ceasing about 5 years ago, but few details about this past activity have been given, including the duration and frequency of the activity. The appellants have also offered to only carry out concrete crushing at times agreed with the occupiers of Orange Hall Lodge but this is unlikely to provide a solution as the neighbouring occupiers are retired/have disabilities and would be more likely to be spending time at home. Various measures were suggested by the Council to reduce theAppeal Decision APP/Z1585/A/05/1195474effects of the proposal on the neighbouring property at the time of a previous, withdrawn application, such as moving the proposed building away from the nearest dwelling, but none of these have been incorporated into this application.13. In terms of dust, at the Hearing the appellants said that they would install fine mist spraying equipment within the proposed building and at the concrete crushing operation. A similar statement is included in the planning application. Whilst this could be the subject of a suitably-worded condition, as suggested by the appellants, it would be more difficult to control dust from the concrete crushing operation which would be carried out in the open air. I consider that dust would also be likely to have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Orange Hall Lodge.14. Although other neighbours have objected to the proposal in terms of its effect on their living conditions in terms of noise, I consider that their properties are sufficiently far away from the proposal not to be adversely affected. The adjacent occupiers at Honeywood and Gairsay House have objected in terms of the effect of the proposal on the view from their respective houses/gardens. However, the effect of proposals on private views is not a matter to which I can give much weight. I also accept that such matters as vermin and litter could be adequately controlled on the site.15. Nevertheless, I conclude that there would be harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Orange Hall Lodge in terms of noise and dust, which would be contrary to Policy W10E of the WP and RLP36 of the LP.Other matters16. Many local people are concerned about the traffic which would be likely to be generated as a result of the proposal and its effect on the level of traffic passing through the village of Gosfield. The road through the village, the A1017, is narrow and pavements through the village, which has a school on the main road, are also narrow, with restricted width on pedestrian refuges. The appellants estimate that there would be an average of about 180 HGV movements per week as a result of the proposal. However, they also say that there would be environmental improvements in relocating from their existing site at Colne Engaine, which uses small rural roads.17. At the Hearing the appellants said the proposal would be a relocation rather than an expansion, in that it would not handle extra waste, although three extra jobs would be created by the move. It would be close to both the source of their waste, which is mainly generated in Braintree, and to the destination for some of the recycled products and landfill waste, which is in the direction of Colchester. This would be in accordance with the proximity principle. Whilst the appellants' lorries might already be on the road and some pass through Gosfield, I consider that the proposed relocation of the business would be likely to concentrate more HGV movements through the village because of its proximity to the site. Although there is no objection from the highway authority to the proposal and the access would be adequate for the proposed use, despite the bend in the road to the south of the site, an increased concentration of HGV movements would add to the unpleasant environment for pedestrians walking along the A1017 in Gosfield. Although this in itself would not be grounds for dismissing the appeal, it adds to my concerns about the proposal.18. A wildlife assessment of the site has been carried out by the appellants, as requested by the Council. This was referenced in the appellants' statement, but the survey was not submitted4Appeal Decision APP/Z1585/A/05/1195474as part of the appeal and the Council said at the Hearing that they had not seen it. The appellants claim that the survey had shown that neither protected species nor habitat would be adversely affected by the proposal. Nevertheless there has not been the opportunity for the County Council or one of its specialist consultees, such as English Nature, to carry out an appraisal of the assessment.Conclusions19. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the prevention of further vandalism/trespass to the site and the previous positive advice given to the appellants about the proposal by the District Council, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Formal Decision20. I dismiss the appeal.E A HillINSPECTOR