# Former Gas Holder Site, Cranbourne Road, Gosport (open storage)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Cahalane
- **Authority:** Gosport (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011101
- **Application reference:** 26/00104/FULL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use from former gas holder land (sui generis) to open storage (Class B8), speculative, no end user
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6, S4(2), E2(1)(a)
- **Development plan policies:** Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 LP22, LP23
- **Main issues:** highway safety
- **Tags:** e2-substantial-weight, tr6-highway-safety, s4-substantially-outweighed, speculative-b8, open-storage, transport-evidence, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A speculative change of use of a former gas-works site in Gosport to open storage (B8). The appeal was dismissed for lack of transport evidence. The inspector gave E2 substantial weight to the economic benefits, but held that failing TR6, a "should be refused" policy on unacceptable highway safety impact, meant the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "As these revisions could affect the issues in this case, the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments" (DL ¶2).
- **Transport evidence.** The appellant argued that quantifying traffic for an unknown occupier was "an impossible burden of proof". The inspector disagreed: "transport assessments undertaken by suitably qualified professionals could quantify the above matters in a robust, focussed and non-arbitrary manner. For example, by utilising … TRICS" (DL ¶8).
- **Highway safety: FAIL.** "there are real non-hypothetical risks in highway safety terms, in respect of larger vehicle reversing manoeuvres and associated visibility obstructions" (DL ¶13).
- **A condition would not cure it.** A condition restricting the use to Class B8, or requiring a fresh application for a change of operator, "would not be reasonable" given the unresolved risk (DL ¶14).
- **S4 mechanics.** S4's listed circumstances include where a proposal would "fail to comply with one of the NDMPs which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶17). "even when giving substantial weight to the economic benefits that would inevitably arise from the proposal, NDMP TR6 sets out that development proposals should be refused if they would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶18). "the benefits of approving the appeal development are substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶19).

## Planning balance
S4. Benefits: economic, with E2 substantial weight. Adverse: failure of TR6, which feeds the S4(2) "should be refused" circumstance. Result: substantially outweighed, and the plan conflict stands.

## What made the difference
The absence of a transport statement. The inspector said a TRICS-based range for open-storage users, compared with the former gas-works traffic, together with tracking plans and a condition tailored to the result, could have resolved the issue. Speculative B8 schemes need a worst-case transport case.

## Transferable points
- E2's substantial weight applies even to speculative commercial schemes, but it cannot overcome failure of a national policy that says "should be refused" (TR6 unacceptable highway safety) (DL ¶18-19).
- S4(2): failing a "should be refused" national decision-making policy is a recognised route to "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17).
- Uncertainty about the end user is not an excuse for missing transport evidence. TRICS ranges can bracket open-storage traffic (DL ¶8-9).

## Policy findings
- **E2(1)(a): benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight given even though the speculative benefits are hard to quantify (DL 18)
- **TR6: fail.** no transport statement, TRICS comparison with the gas-works use, or tracking; sharp bend, on-street parking, residential approach roads; "real non-hypothetical risks" (DL 5-13, 18-19)
- **S4(2): fail.** failure of a "should be refused" policy (TR6 unacceptable highway safety) is a circumstance in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 17-19)
- **LP22, LP23 (Gosport LP): conflict.** fundamental conflict; plan as a whole breached (DL 13, 16)

## Key facts
- Large fenced hardstanding, former gas works with three gasometers from 1909; holders demolished under 2022 prior approval
- Appellant said traffic could range from builders' materials storage to a rapid-turnover logistics yard
- Sharp right-hand turn immediately before the entrance; access via terraced streets with no off-street parking and cars parked on footways
- No Transport Statement or Assessment, no vehicle tracking
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011101
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/92de148b-f04b-4e51-b64e-f5d184baf054

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011101.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.