Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 17 January 2017 Site visit made on 20 January 2017 by Stephen Brown MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 07 June 2017

Appeal Ref: APP/C3240/C/15/3135796 S P Holding Ltd, Upper Coalmoor Farm, Coalmoor Lane, Moreton Coppice, Telford TF4 2PX  The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.  The appeal is by Stephen Holding against an enforcement notice issued by Telford and Wrekin Council.  The enforcement notice, ref. ENF/2015/0181, was issued on 4 September 2015.  The breach of planning control alleged in the notice is: Without Planning Permission, the carrying out of engineering operations and other operational development using heavy plant and machinery in order to excavate the land substantially altering the ground levels, and the associated extraction of stone/hardcore. Also without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use of the land from agricultural to a mixed use comprising: Storage of heavy goods vehicles including tractor units and trailers. Storage of other industrial/commercial vehicles including vans. Storage of other industrial/commercial plant, machinery and other paraphernalia Storage of portable toilets. Siting of caravans for use as living accommodation. Creation of car parking area and associated hardstanding. Storage of scaffolding supplies and equipment including associated portable containers. Storage of steel shipping containers, timber, concrete blocks, fence posts, pipes and other building materials.  The requirements of the notice are to: 1. Cease all engineering and excavation operations on the site, and restore the land to its former condition with the same levels, contours and appearance of the adjacent land 2. Cease the use of the land for the storage of heavy goods vehicles including tractor units and trailers, and remove all heavy goods vehicles, tractor units and trailers from the land 3. Cease the use of the land for the storage of industrial/commercial vehicles, and remove all industrial/commercial vehicles from the land 4. Cease the use of land for the storage of industrial/commercial plant machinery and other paraphernalia, and remove all industrial/commercial plant, machinery and any other paraphernalia from the land 5. Cease the use of the land for the storage of portable toilets, and remove all portable toilets from the land

Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

6. Cease the use of the land for the siting of caravans for use as living accommodation, and remove all caravans from the land 7. Cease the use of the land as a car parking area, and remove all hardstanding, hard core and sub-base and reinstate the land to its previous condition as agricultural land 8. Cease the use of the land for the storage of scaffolding supplies and equipment, and remove all associated scaffolding equipment including storage racks and portable units/containers from the land 9. Cease the use of the land for the storage of steel containers, timber, concrete blocks, fence posts, pipes and other building materials.  The period for compliance with the requirements is 6 months.  The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. The prescribed fees have been paid within the specified period, and the application for planning permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended falls to be considered. Summary of decision: the appeal is dismissed except to the limited extent on ground (g), and the enforcement notice is varied and upheld.

Applications for costs

1. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the appellant by the Council against the appellant. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The Inquiry

2. Evidence at the Inquiry was taken under oath or solemn affirmation.

Background matters

3. Upper Coalmoor Farm comprises some 12.25 hectares of land in the appellant’s ownership. It lies on the northern side of Coalmoor Road, within open countryside, about 300 metres to the west of Horsehay village. The appellant, who has owned the site since 1999, has operated his businesses on part of the land since planning permission was granted in 2001 for:

The change of use of part of the farm to agricultural plant hire, agricultural haulage yard with ancillary workshop, office, vehicular parking and for no other purpose1.

4. The part of the site to which this approval related was roughly central within the overall site along the road boundary, and extended back to include most of the buildings then on the site, but excluded the listed farmhouse itself, and the farmland around.

5. Further planning permissions were granted, which changed the nature of the permitted uses and the extent of the approved site. Notably, in 2004 for:

Change of use of agricultural haulage and plant hire site to plant hire contractor and haulage yard2.

1 Decision notice ref. W98/1071, dated 29 June 2001. 2 Decision notice ref. W2003/1486, dated 17 March 2004.

2 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

This effectively brought to an end the use of the approved site for agricultural purposes. Condition 8 of that permission stated that the premises should be used for plant hire, haulage with ancillary workshop, office and vehicular parking and for no other purposes including any other purposed in Class B1 or B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

In 2005 planning permission was granted for:

Extensions to the existing haulage yard (including haulage of waste products) and plant hire/contracting yard and formation of earth bunds, erection of a 2 metre high security fence and access gates, and retention of the existing access3.

This extended the previously approved site by relatively small amounts to east and west, and to the north so that it included the existing buildings, and bounded the corner of the adjacent waste disposal site to the north-west. For the purposes of this decision I have referred to this extended area as ‘the lawful site’.

Planning permissions have also been granted for , alteration, or extension of various buildings on the lawful site, but these do not have particular relevance in this case.

6. The enforcement notice relates to two areas of the land. There is a relatively small area immediately to the west of the farmhouse approximately 40 metres square, and an area abutting the eastern boundary of the 2005 approved site, extending to the eastern farm site boundary (about 60 metres), widening towards the north to a maximum of about 220 metres, and extending to the north by about 300 metres from the road boundary. For the purposes of this decision I have referred to the land against which enforcement action is being taken as ‘the enforcement land’, and used the references to the various parts of that land that are given on the appellant’s Layout and Landscaping Plan4 . That is, area W1 to the west of the farmhouse, and areas E1 to E4 – different parts of the very much larger area to the east.

7. Upper Coalmoor Farmhouse is a Grade II listed building, I have therefore had regard to my duty under s.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The appeal on ground (c)

8. This ground is that there has not been a breach of planning control. The appellant argues this on the relatively limited basis that no material change of use has taken place if a new operator comes onto the site carrying out the same use as before, and that the caravans stationed on the site were to house workers on the nearby landfill site on a temporary basis.

9. Regarding the first part of that argument, the Council accept that a new operator of a previously existing use does not constitute a material change of use. I concur with that view, and have not considered that aspect of the

3 Decision notice ref. W/2005/0406, dated 31 May 2005. 4 Drawing no.1483.03, dated 5 December 2016.

3 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

argument any further. However the Council argue that the caravans remained on site for a longer period than necessary for temporary purposes. This is principally on the basis that they consider there were effectively permanent utility connections, and television aerials. Furthermore, there had been a static mobile home on enforcement notice site W1, occupied by the site security guard. This latter matter only became fully apparent at the Inquiry.

10. Regarding the 4 touring caravans, the appellant claims they were on the site and occupied for a period of 8-10 weeks in the summer of 2015. Photographs taken by the Council in August 2015 show the 4 touring caravans. I saw what the Council had taken to be a fixed water standpipe, was no more than a hosepipe attached to a post. The television aerial appeared to be a movable item, and could well be a piece of portable equipment belonging to one of the caravan occupants. Overall, there is virtually nothing to contradict the appellant’s version of events, and I consider on the balance of probabilities these touring caravans were on the site temporarily in connection with operations being carried out on land adjoining the appellant’s site. Such a use is permitted under the provisions of Class A of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)() Order 2015 (the GPDO). This was a lawful use that did not cause an additional permanent use to be established on the site.

11. As to the mobile home that stood on area W1, I understand this was occupied by the late site security guard from about 2005/06. He had died in 2011 - some 4 years before the enforcement notice was issued - and the unit has not been in residential use since that time. The mobile home remains on the appellant’s site, but outside the areas enforced against.

12. I have come to the conclusion that on the balance of probabilities the four touring caravans that stood on area E4 were sited lawfully under the above mentioned provisions of the GPDO. However, the residential mobile home occupied by the late security guard was sited on area W1until well within the critical 10 year period before issue of the notice. There was no planning permission for this, and it was not permitted development. This was a breach of planning control, and the appeal on ground (c) in respect of this use therefore must therefore fail. However, both the allegation and Requirement 6 refer to caravans in the plural, rather than caravan in the singular. I shall vary the enforcement notice in this regard, and do not consider any party to be significantly prejudiced by this change.

The appeal on ground (d)

13. This ground is that the operational development was substantially completed at least 4 years before the enforcement notice was issued on 4 September 2014, and that the alleged change of use has subsisted continuously for a period of 10 or more years prior to that date.

14. Aerial photographs show that in 1999 the eastern enforcement areas were green fields, with virtually no indication of any use. There was a building on the northern part of W1, which otherwise appeared to be scrubby ground.

15. In 2002, there was car-parking on W1 as well as storage of what appear to be bags of building materials. Little is visible of the eastern areas, apart from a small part of E4, where there is evidence of ground disturbance, but no indication of any particular use. In 2004 there is no apparent parking or

4 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

storage on W1. There are some 15 or 16 vehicles – or possibly trailers or effluent tanks – located close to the hedgerow along the southern and eastern sides of E3/E4. There is a track worn in the grass along a temporary access from Upper Coalmoor Road, through the hedge and along the southern part of E3.

16. In June 2006 the mobile home – which may possibly then have been in use as the appellant’s temporary office - was sited on W1, but there is little evidence of any storage there. There are rather more items situated close to the southern and eastern hedgerows of E2 and E3 – perhaps 20 or 25 vehicles or trailers, and there is a rather more pronounced track worn along the E3 southern hedgerow. There are also items stored on the part of E4 that is now the car-park, and some encroachment onto land to the east of the car-park. By August of that year the situation on W1 had changed little, there are significantly fewer items on E2 and E3, as well as on E4. I understand these included a tractor, diesel tanks, articulated lorries, and building materials. The surface of the northern part of E2 had clearly been stripped between June and August 2006. Also in 2006, the appellant said that he had displayed vehicles for potential customers on the enforcement land.

17. The appellant claims that there had been storage and parking on all the enforcement areas from about 2001, with the use of W1 more or less constant, and use of the southern part of E3 for storing vehicles, machinery, containers and other goods, as well as other parts of the eastern area. Furthermore, when these uses started, these were items that could not be accommodated on the lawful commercial site. As was said by one of the appellant’s witnesses the land was used ‘in an irregular fashion’.

18. I can see that this picture of the uses accords quite closely with the evidence of the aerial photographs, and it appears to me that in the period from about 2004 to at least August 2006 the enforcement land was used rather casually for overspill of vehicles and equipment from the lawful site. I consider these parking and storage uses were very much incidental to lawful uses on the commercial site.

19. I understand the car park on area E4, for use by employees on the lawful site was surfaced in 2005, when the appellant’s new office building was opened. However, the aerial photograph from June 2006 shows some form of storage on that area, which is partially surfaced, but apparently incomplete at the southern end. The fully finished car-park with marked out bays is then visible in the June 2009 aerial photo. In my view it is improbable that this area has been available for car-parking in its finished form since September 2005. Furthermore, the operational development is part and parcel of what is necessary to implement the use, and does not benefit from immunity from enforcement action after 4 years.

20. It is apparent that by June 2009 the situation had changed very significantly. The aerial photograph of that date shows the mobile home on W1, as well as other items that are possibly a container and a vehicle. The car-park on E4 had been formally laid out and surfaced with , there is a well-worn roadway along the southern and eastern sides of E2/E3 that is quite probably stone surfaced. There are extensive earthworks on the northern part of E2, as well as vehicles or trailers parked there – which I understand were owned by a waste disposal operator from an adjacent site. Surfacing has been extended

5 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

over the western part of E3, where there are vehicles/equipment, as well as along the hedgerows as before.

21. A year later - June 2010 – there are even more marked differences. The surfaced area on the south and west of E2/E3 has been much extended. There are many more items parked or stored, including what appear to be portable WC cubicles, and a rank of vehicles/equipment to the north of those along the southern hedgerow. These mainly comprised generators, trucks, and exhibition trailer, lighting sets, and storage containers. There is further encroachment on the E4 land to the east of the car-park. At this time the appellant had started a vehicle repair business, mainly operated from his workshop, and vehicles were temporarily parked on the enforcement land pending repair.

22. By September 2011, there is little to be seen on W1, but the area in use has been extended somewhat to the west, and there are items stored there – possibly bags of building materials. There have been dramatic changes to E2/E3 where bunds have been formed along the northern and north-western sides of the area in use, and there has been extensive encroachment to the east of the car-park. Vehicles and equipment appear to have been haphazardly placed over a considerable greater area than previously. At this time, there was apparently much equipment kept on the site in preparation for the Olympic Games the following year. By July 2012 the situation regarding parking/storage appears much the same.

23. There are no aerial photographs available from July 2012 until October 2016. In March 2015 an agricultural accessory supplier – TFM Farm & Country Superstore(TFM) - had taken over much of the warehouse as a distribution hub, although initially there had also been retail sales. In addition to the warehouse, the firm have outdoor storage on land to the front of the warehouse as well as on area W1. I saw stacks of fencing and land drainage components, bags of granular building materials, and so forth.

24. In the October 2016 aerial photograph the bund along the northern side of E3 had been consolidated, a structure put up by a scaffolding firm is prominent, the eastern side of E4 has been further encroached upon, and there are numerous trailers or lorries parked there – as was the case at the time of my site visit. The excavated area to the southern side of E2 has been extended in a somewhat random manner, and a gap has been created in the hedge to the southern side of E3.

25. It appears to me that in the period from 2009 onwards there was a very significant intensification of storage and parking uses, covering a much wider area than in 2006. It is likely that this coincided first with significant expansion of Mr Holdings’ businesses, and increase in the amount of vehicles and plant in use. Ms Smith stated that the peak of the business was in about 2010/2011, and that with the recession, there was an increase in the vehicles and plant being returned to Upper Coalmoor Farm as projects came to a halt.

26. I consider there was a fairly gradual change in the way the enforcement site was used from about 2004/2006 - when use was clearly rather casual and incidental to uses on the lawful site - to 2009/2011, by which time there was clearly no possibility that operations could be contained within the lawful site. It appears likely, for instance, that the portable WC and general hire business

6 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

that Mr Holding started in around 2008 could not be contained within the lawful site, and depended for its existence upon use of the enforcement site. While this was principally a storage use, I consider it likely as a matter of fact and degree that the hire business had become a primary use of the enforcement land to which the storage was incidental. The car-park laid out on E4 had been established between 2006 and 2009, although I understand the tarmac was laid in the summer of 2005. I understand that for a short period the TFM operation was in part retail, which effectively introduced a retail element of use to W1.

27. The appellant argues that this might be seen as an intensification of a mixed use of the enforcement land for storage and parking from about 2001/02, and that intensification of such a mixed use cannot be regarded as a material change. However, in my view, as a matter of fact and degree the uses taking place in 2006 were still relatively insignificant and casual uses, and the land remained little changed. From sometime between 2006 and 2009 and then onwards, the variety of activities on the enforcement land increased; a very significantly increased area of land was brought into use, and the land was physically changed to a very significant degree. When taken together, the uses were of significantly different character from the casual uses taking place from 2001/02, and at least until 2006.

28. Even if this is not the case, there was a particularly critical event starting in 2010, to about 2013 - the period when Roden Scaffolding moved the entire business to the enforcement site. Mr Roden had kept several pallets of scaffold poles somewhere on the site from about 2004/05, when he had been employed by the appellant to provide scaffolding for his house renovations and other construction works. This remained the case until the winter of 2010 when, after a serious theft from his previous yard he had started to move his equipment to the enforcement site and started to pay rent. The main move had taken about 2 years in all, and he had built a substantial structure for storage of equipment such as scaffold poles and scaffold boards. This eventually comprised 5 portacabins stacked up to 2 storeys, and an extensive covered area of the same height. He has his office desk and chair in one of the portacabins. He now has between 15 and 20 employees, depending on the season, who bring their cars and vans each day, and his operator’s licence for his 3 HGVs is now registered at the site.

29. Mr Roden could not identify from aerial photographs where he had kept the pallets of scaffold poles on the site and, as he said in cross-examination, the scaffolding had remained there ‘for the sake of not moving it’. This early use appears to have been no more than a casual convenience both for him and the appellant. Although storage of scaffolding equipment and parking are integral to his present operation, they are uses that are incidental to his principal operation, which to my mind has become a sui generis primary use of the site. The use generates its own traffic movements and parking requirements that are quite independent of the uses on the lawful site, and to my mind this introduction has in itself brought about a material change to the previously existing mix of uses on the site.

30. The allegations and requirements of the notice refer to the use for storage of scaffolding supplies, equipment, and portable containers. As I have found, a sui generis use as a scaffolding business has been introduced to the site, which includes incidental uses for storage of scaffolding, equipment, and portable

7 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

storage containers. I consider the allegation relating to the storage of scaffolding etc. would be more accurately expressed as ‘use for a scaffolding business, including storage of scaffolding supplies and equipment, and associated portable containers’ , and the related requirement expressed in similar terms. The appellant is well aware of this use and I do not consider he would be caused injustice if I were to vary the allegation and requirement in this way.

31. The overall picture is of a changing use of the enforcement land over a long period from uses incidental to lawful uses elsewhere on Upper Coalmoor Farm to a mixture of uses, including those incidental uses, and other primary uses such as that by Roden Scaffolding, and possibly other of Mr Holding’s operations. On the balance of probabilities, I do not consider there has been an uninterrupted use for storage and parking from 2004 or before to the present day, as the appellant claims. There were significant changes in the use of the site during that period, including the use for several years for siting a residential caravan, but more critical being the introduction of the sui generis scaffolding business between 2010 and 2013. A 10 year period of continuous mixed use before September 2015 has not been made out, on the balance of probabilities.

32. Regarding the operational development, it is apparent that excavation of the land started in around June 2006, when stone was needed for hardcore in the construction of the workshop. This continued as material was required for the MOT testing bay to the back of the workshop (2010), the base for hardstanding in area E3 (2011), further hardstanding (2012), and further extension of the workshop (2014). While these are discrete operations in themselves, it is also apparent that the excavations have given the opportunity to provide levelled areas for placing vehicles, equipment and materials that would not otherwise be available as a result of the sloping nature of the site. Indeed the Roden Scaffolding structure occupies one such excavated area, although not identified in the notice as an area where the operational development is enforced against.

33. In my view the excavations, building projects, and levelling should be seen as a continuous engineering operation. This operation is continuing, as is evident on the site, and in the appellant’s clear intention to make area E2 suitable for ‘vehicle and other storage’ shown in his proposed layout and landscaping scheme. This is quite distinguishable from a mining operation where, as Lord Denning stated in the Court of Appeal case of Penybont5 ‘every shovelful is a mining operation…..and, developers can go free in respect of extractions that took place more than 4 years before (issue of) the enforcement notice’. On the appellant’s evidence, the operations started after the critical date in 2005, they cannot yet be regarded as substantially complete, and I do not consider they are immune from enforcement action.

34. In an appeal on the ‘legal’ ground (d), with matters of fact in dispute, there is well established legal authority to say that if a has no evidence itself, nor any from others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less than probable, there is no good reason to refuse the appeal, provided the applicant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the case on the balance of probabilities.

5 Thomas David (Porthcawl) Ltd and another v Penybont Rural District Council and Others [1972] 1 WLR 1526.

8 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

35. In this case, the appellant has been neither precise nor unambiguous in assessment of the uses that have taken place, or the periods for which they subsisted. Notably there is no documentary evidence as to the uses on the land in September 2005, 10 years before the notice was issued. On the balance of probabilities I do not consider the alleged breaches are immune from enforcement action, and the appeal on ground (d) therefore fails.

The appeal on ground (a)

36. This ground is that planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice.

37. From my inspection of the appeal site and its surroundings, and from the representations made at the Inquiry and in writing I consider the main issues in this appeal to be:  The effect of the alleged breaches on the character and appearance of the countryside in the vicinity of the appeal site.  The effect of the alleged breaches on the setting of Upper Coalmoor Farmhouse – a Grade II listed building.

38. The appellant argues that development on area W1 has no unacceptable impact, that the appeal site as a whole does not lie within a valued landscape as envisaged in paragraph 109 of the NPPF, nor within a district-wide important landscape as defined in the Council’s Strategic Landscape Study of 2015. Furthermore, the appellant has had an assessment carried out according to the method set out in Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA). It is maintained that the methodology is sound, and the assessment shows that the development causes relatively localised impacts, indicating the appeal site does not occupy a prominent position in the wider landscape.

39. The appeal site lies within the area classified in the Shropshire Landscape Typology as ‘Wooded Estatelands’, the key characteristics of which include a rolling landform, with large blocks of ancient woodland, and land in mixed agricultural use. This part of the District lies relatively close to another area classified as ‘Coalfields’, where the principal characteristics are the upstanding rolling plateau, a dispersed pattern of small farms and wayside cottages, and coal mining remains. Indeed, sites to the north and west of Upper Coalmoor Farm were until relatively recently in the 20th century open-cast coal mines, that have now been restored – that to the north is now a golf course and driving range, and to the west open agricultural fields. Restoration is well- advanced on the landfill site to the north-east,

40. I accept that the landscape in the vicinity of the appeal site is by no means exceptional, that it lies relatively close to a residential area to the east, and there is also a trunk road less than 500 metres to the east. Nevertheless it is clear that the appellant’s land outside the lawfully developed area was formerly open rolling fields with hedges, of distinctly rural character. Rather than being urban fringe, I consider that prior to the alleged unauthorised development, this would have been seen as part of the open countryside outside the urban area.

41. The development that has taken place – particularly the excavation in the hillside to a depth of at least 5 metres, creation of spoil heaps and removal of a section of hedgerow has caused an unsightly scar in what were otherwise

9 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

pleasant open fields. This has been exacerbated by what are for the most part haphazard and chaotic storage, parking, and business uses, and the unsightly structure for the scaffolding firm.

42. There are hedges and some fencing along Coalmoor Road, and Dog-in-the- Lane, to the west of the site. These provide some degree of screening from the highway. However, the car-park and the storage area to its east, with the numerous trailers, remain readily visible, as do the various containers and stored material on W1. These views are incongruous in what might otherwise be expected to be a rural scene. Views of the appeal site are available from the public footpath across the golf-course, some 600-700 metres to the north. Although detail cannot readily be distinguished from this distance, the developed and somewhat chaotic nature of the site are highly apparent, as compared with what would have been the original rural character of the open fields.

43. The appellant put forward the view that the development does not conflict with policy aims relating to quality of design, notably Policy UD2 of the Wrekin Local Plan of 2000, since no design principles were involved. However, it is all too evident in the disregard for the rural context, the landscape, and any aspects of nature conservation, that there has been no consideration of such principles. This lack of proper consideration of layout can be seen in the disorganised disposition of vehicles, materials and equipment. I accept that Policy UD2 is essentially concerned with urban design and the quality of the built environment. However, this development has created a scene of distinct urban/industrial character, and it is clear that the policy addresses quite general design principles concerning layout, landscape, and spatial quality of development. In my view this has considerable relevance to the development enforced against.

44. There is evidence of the presence of great crested newts in several of the ponds to the north of the appeal site, and that is acknowledged in the survey carried out for the appellant by Worcestershire Wildlife Consultancy (WWC), who also conclude that this species may also exist on the enforcement site, during the terrestrial phase, as a place of refuge. Furthermore, the hedgerows and some of the stored items could support nesting wild birds. The Council’s ecology specialist does not significantly diverge from these views.

45. If protected species are present, it is very possible that any harm likely to be caused to them will have occurred, and may is still be occurring. While I have no direct evidence that this is the case, it is a factor that weighs against approval of either the material change of use, or the operational development. As advised by paragraph 99 of government circular 06/20056, in exceptional circumstances it may be possible to impose a condition requiring establishment of the presence or otherwise of protected species, the extent to which they are affected by development, and any necessary protective measures are put in place before planning permission is granted. Such circumstances may exist in this case – as a result of being development already carried out. However, such a condition would by no means overcome the significant harm I have identified to other interests.

6 Government circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System.

10 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

46. Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework includes the advice that, as a core principle, planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the business and industrial units that the country needs, amongst other things. This paragraph sets out a further principle including the advice that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised.

47. The appellant argues that significant benefits have arisen from the development in terms of providing local employment, which would be lost if the notice were complied with. He put forward a schedule of the numbers of people employed. However, this made no distinction between those largely employed on the lawful site – and who could continue to work - and those on the enforcement site. Nor did it identify those who might work off site altogether. I did not find this document provided a reliable indication of potential employment losses. Furthermore, there are other employment sites in the Telford area – even if on the opposite side of the town – and it is reasonably likely that affected firms could find alternative accommodation. Mr Roden might well find an alternative site for his scaffolding firm, but indicated that he would probably choose not to do so. Overall, I do not consider there to be sufficiently reliable evidence of likely employment losses to justify the significant harm that has been caused to rural interests.

48. I conclude on the first main issue, that the development alleged in the enforcement notice causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the countryside in its vicinity. The development does not accord with the provisions of the development plan, notably in respect of the Wrekin Local Plan Policies UD2 previously referred to, and Policy UD4 which seeks to promote landscape interests.

49. On the appellant’s evidence it is likely there are great crested newts present on the appeal site, at least during some phases of their life-cycle. I consider the site must be considered as a potentially important natural habitat. In that respect the development fails to accord with Policy OL6, which seeks to protect locally important incidental land that contributes to the character of the area or has importance as a natural habitat. Furthermore, the development does not accord with policy of the Telford and Wrekin Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document of 2007 – notably Policy CS 12 which seeks to protect and enhance the Borough’s natural environment.

50. The appellant has put forward a landscape scheme that would retain parking and most of the storage areas, apart from the eastern part of E4, and the Roden Scaffolding site would remain. Area E2 would be levelled, the western side extended to the line of electrical pylons, defined by a palisade fence and hedge, and an earth mound formed along its northern side. There would be planting along existing and new earth bunds . It is suggested that this would be a mitigation scheme, and could be granted planning permission with a condition requiring its implementation.

51. S.177(1)(a) of the Act limits my power to grant planning permission to the development to which the enforcement notice relates, or for part of that development, or for development of part of the land to which the enforcement notice relates. This scheme differs significantly from the development that has taken place, and I have no power to grant permission for such a substitute proposal. To obtain planning permission for an alternative scheme the

11 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

appellant would need to make an application, so that proposals could be subject to consultation with interested parties, and the Council could make a fully informed determination. Although the Council would have the power to turn away such an application when an enforcement notice is in force, they indicated - mainly with regard to the protected species matters – that they would be unlikely to do so.

The effect of the development on the setting of Upper Coalmoor Farmhouse

52. The Farmhouse is a Grade II listed building. It is a rendered timber-framed cottage of 17th century origin, with an 18th or early 19th century brick house attached at its eastern end. The building was extensively repaired and re- furbished by the appellant soon after he bought the land.

53. The front of the Farmhouse is in open view from Coalmoor Road, across the lawn, and is prominently visible from the road on approach from the east and west. It is an attractive feature in the street scene, providing probably the only visual link to the historic agricultural use of the site. Although the appellant claims the setting is very localised, limited to its private curtilage, in my view it has wider significance as an historic building set in a mainly rural landscape.

54. On approach along Coalmoor Road from the east the unauthorised development – mainly on area E4 – has little impact in oblique views towards the building, where the roadside hedge leads the eye towards the eastern elevation of the Farmhouse, with the appellant’s quite handsome office building to its right. Nevertheless, the vehicles and equipment standing on the land are readily apparent in direct views towards the fence, and provide a poor, incongruous setting.

55. Similarly on approach from the west, the unauthorised development has little impact in oblique views. However, looking from Dog-in-the-Lane, the building is seen across an open area of land and then area W1, with its stacks of stored materials and containers. The hedging is relatively sparse, and provides ineffectual screening. While a touring caravan parked on the Farmhouse front garden screens the listed building, this is an impermanent feature. In my opinion the setting of the Farmhouse is significantly harmed.

56. This must be considered as less than substantial harm, and the government’s Planning Practice Guidance includes the advice that such harm should be weighed against any public benefits of the development. In this case no significant public benefit derives from the development, and the harm I find to the listed building is not outweighed.

57. Given the significant harm I find to the character and appearance of the area, and to the setting of the Grade II listed building, I conclude overall that the appeal on ground (a) should not succeed and planning permission should not be granted on the deemed planning application.

The appeal on ground (f)

58. This ground is that the requirements of the notice are excessive and lesser steps would overcome the Council’s objections. The appellant’s principal argument is that the required land restoration is disproportionate and unreasonable, mainly on the basis that it would achieve no planning purpose in

12 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

the prevailing landscape context. I accept that the required restoration would be a large and costly operation. However, that does not mean that restoration would be a dis-benefit as the appellant claims.

59. These arguments are essentially a further attempt to argue the planning merits of the case, which I have already considered under ground (a). Furthermore, it merely suggests that the situation should remain as it is, and goes no way towards the suggestion of a lesser step, or towards overcoming the Council’s objections.

60. As to potential harm to protected species that might arise from compliance with the notice, the appellant remains subject to the provisions of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which are quite separate from the planning regime. The restoration works would need to be executed with proper regard to those regulations, and this cannot be seen as a reason to omit this requirement.

61. The submitted landscape scheme could possibly be seen a lesser step than carrying out the required restoration. However, the submitted scheme is not an obvious alternative to the restoration requirement. It would extend the excavated area, create different boundaries from those of the area enforced against, and introduce new elements of bunding and planting. As noted above, a planning application would be necessary in order for this alternative scheme to be properly considered.

62. I do not consider that lesser steps have been demonstrated that would overcome the Council’s objections, and the appeal on ground (f) must fail. Furthermore, had an appeal been made on ground (f) on the basis of the appellant’s landscape scheme, that too would fail.

The appeal on ground (g)

63. The enforcement notice states 6 months as the compliance period, but the appellant considers 12 months would be necessary. I can understand that given the need for alternative sites to be found for some of the activities, the extent of removals, the land restoration required, and the probable necessity to carry out a protected species survey, a considerably longer period than 6 months would be needed. The Council did not strongly dispute this.

64. I concur with the appellant’s view that a period of 12 months would be an appropriate compliance period. The appeal on ground (g) therefore succeeds and I intend to vary the enforcement notice accordingly prior to upholding it.

Conclusions

65. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I consider the appeal should not succeed, except to the limited extent on ground (g), and I intend to uphold the notice with variations.

Formal decision

66. I direct that the enforcement notice is varied by:

DELETION of the words ‘Storage of scaffolding supplies and equipment including associated portable containers’ from the allegations; and,

13 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

SUBSTITUTION of the words ‘Introduction of a scaffolding supplies and equipment business, including associated portable containers’.

DELETION of the words ‘Cease the use of the land for the storage of scaffolding supplies and equipment, and remove all associated scaffolding equipment including storage racks and portable units/containers from the land’ from Requirement 8 of the notice; and,

SUBSTITUTION of the words ‘Cease the use of the land for the operation of the sui generis scaffolding supplies and equipment business, and remove all associated scaffolding equipment including storage racks and portable units/containers from the land’.

DELETION of the word caravans from the allegation and from Requirement 6 of the notice: and,

SUBSTITUTION of the words a caravan

The appeal is allowed on ground (g), and I direct that the enforcement notice is varied by:

DELETION of 6 months and the substitution of 12 months as the period for compliance.

67. Subject to these variations the enforcement notice is upheld. Stephen Brown

INSPECTOR

14 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Jack Smyth of Counsel, instructed by David Brammer of Lanyon Bowdler, Solicitors. He called: Barry Roden Owner of scaffolding business at Upper Coalmoor Farm. Anthony Payne Owner of property adjacent to Upper Coalmoor Farm. Mark Littleford Managing director TFM Farm and Country Superstore. Stephen Holding Site owner and appellant. Edward Leszcynski Ecologist BSc(Ecology) MEnvImpact Worcestershire Wildlife Consultancy. Tracey Smith The appellant’s former wife. Martyn Farrington Owner of business at Upper Coalmoor Farm. Mr A Moss BA(Hons) BPI Chartered Town Planner MRTPI Dip LA CMLI Kembertons (Planning & Heritage). Clive Roberts BSc MRTPI Chartered Town Planner Kembertons (Planning & Heritage).

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Sarah Clover Of Counsel, instructed by Eileen Griffin Solicitor with Telford and Wrekin Council. She called: Douglas Harman MLPM Chartered Landscape Architect. CMLI. Steven Drury MA BA(Hons) Principal Planning Officer MRTPI Telford and Wrekin Council. David Jones BSc(Hons) Principal Enforcement Officer MPlan Telford and Wrekin Council.

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Cllr Jacqui Seymour Councillor for Telford and Wrekin Council Wrockwardine Ward.

DOCUMENTS

1 Attendance lists for the four Inquiry days. 2 The Council's letters of notification of the appeal, dated 24 February, and 13 December 2016, with the circulation list. 3 Statement of Common Ground. 4 Appendices to Mr Roden’s proof of evidence. 5 Appendix to Mr Payne’s proof of evidence. 6 Appendices to Mr Holding’s proof of evidence. 7 Appendix to Ms Smith’s proof of evidence. 8 Appendix to Mr Farrington’s proof of evidence. 9 Appendices to Mr Moss’s proof of evidence (2 documents). 10 Enclosures with Mr Roberts’ proof of evidence – other than Documents 11 & 15 (3 documents). 11 Appendix to Mr Roberts’ statement relating to the setting of the heritage asset. 12 Appendices to Mr Jones’ proof of evidence.

15 Appeal Decision APP/C3240/C/15/3135796

13 Appendix to Mr Harman’s proof of evidence. 14 Mr Jones’ rebuttal proof and appendices. 15 Worcestershire Wildlife Consultancy – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. 16 Ecological report by Frances Lancaster for the Council. 17 Mr Smyth’s Submission on great crested newts. 18 Great Crested Newt Monitoring Report for Candles Landfill Site. 19 E-correspondence between the appellant’s agents and the Council concerning ecological matters (3 documents). 20 Mrs Seymour’s statement. 21 List of suggested conditions. 22 List description of Coalmoor Farmhouse. 23 Appeal decision ref. APP/B1740/C/13/2195892, dated 15 October 2013. 24 Legal authorities in the cases of: Andrew Bagshaw & Shirley Carroll v Wyre Borough Council and Mrs E Nickson [2014] EWHC 508 (Admin). Kevin Stevens T/A KCS Asset Management v Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council and KS SPV53 Ltd. [2015] EWHC 1606 (Admin). R oao Barr v North Somerset Council, Sidcot School and Winscombe Rugby Football Club [2015] EWHC 1735 (Admin). 25 List of historic files relating to Upper Coalmoor Farm. 26 Core Documents put in by the Council (2 lever-arch files).

PLANS

A Layout and landscape plan (proposed) no. 1483.03

PHOTOGRAPHS

1 Photo dated 18 August 2016 – touring caravan. 2 Aerial photo of Upper Coalmoor Farm – taken around 2002. 3 Display of vehicles for potential customers.

16