The appellants had built the corrugated perspex canopy over a service yard used to store goods temporarily in delivery cages and provide shelter while the goods were moved into the shop. Staff had previously covered the cages with tarpaulin sleeves.
The inspector agreed that the canopy had altered working practices at the site because it was now considerably easier for staff to move items into the shop without having to handle the tarpaulins. As a result, use of the yard had intensified because goods could be stored under the canopy for longer periods, effectively acting as an extension to the storage area.
However, he decided that the increase in activity had not adversely affected local residents' living conditions, given the previous nuisance from wind-blown litter, noise from cages being moved and congestion from delivery and other vehicles. The erection of the canopy had not materially increased these problems and consequently there was little justification for withholding permission, he ruled.
DCS No: 100039197; Inspector: George Mapson; Hearing.