The inspector commented that the location of parking and turning facilities was shown only in an imprecise and diagrammatic way on the submitted plan. Similarly, he found that no information had been submitted on the scale or design of a proposed replacement building. It was therefore not possible to say whether a local gap would be protected, he ruled.
The inspector observed that the area within the appellant's ownership was generally nondescript and unkempt, with dilapidated structures and vehicles being visually prominent. With regard to access, he noted that visibility would be less than half the minimum requirement in one direction and found the appellant's contention that there would be only one or two cars per week unconvincing. He concluded that while the use might be acceptable in principle, the proposal as it stood was in conflict with the local plan.
DCS No: 49119628; Inspector: Martin Bradshaw; Written representations.