The dwellings were located on a cliff above the appeal site. The inspector considered that storage of waste and skips, with their unattractive appearance, would have a severely detrimental impact on the outlook from the two lower dwellings, which had a single aspect towards the site.
She remarked that noise would arise from vehicle movements while skips were mounted and demounted. Although sorting was intended to take place inside buildings on the site, she was not clear how the skips would be moved into the buildings or screened. Moreover, the appellant had provided no further details of sprinklers intended to mitigate the impact of dust. The inspector was concerned about such a vague arrangement.
The appellants argued that environmental permitting exemptions should weigh in favour of the development. The inspector pointed out that the planning system is concerned with the use of land, whereas the environmental permitting regime covers processes and substances in order to control risk of pollution and harm to public health. The exemptions did not indicate that planning permission should necessarily be forthcoming, she concluded.
Inspector: Zoe Hill; Written representations