- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: F Rafiq
- Authority
- Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6011321
- Application reference
- 26/01204/FU
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retrospective storage unit to the rear of Cross Hills and revised car park layout at Ash Court
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6, S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Leeds Core Strategy T2, P10, Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review GP5, BD6, Kippax Neighbourhood Plan BE1
- Main issues
- highway safety and parking; character and appearance
Summary
A retrospective storage building in Kippax, built on part of the car park approved for three new houses, was dismissed on highway safety. The remaining parking layout did not work, and vehicles serving the store would be pushed to an access with restricted visibility. That harm, contrary to TR6 and given significant weight, substantially outweighed the limited benefit of reusing developed land under S4. The building's appearance was acceptable.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I have considered the revised Framework in determining this appeal" (DL ¶4).
- Highway safety, TR6: FAIL. "Even a small increase would have unacceptable road safety implications, bringing vehicles into greater conflict with passing traffic and increasing the risk of accidents" (DL ¶12). "the proposed development has an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety in relation to access and car parking provision" (DL ¶13).
- Off-site parking. "As this land lies outside the applicant's control, a condition requiring reliance upon these nearby parking areas would be unreasonable" (DL ¶8).
- Character, DP3: accord. "It is also compliant with Policy BE1 of the Kippax Neighbourhood Plan and Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶17).
Planning balance
S4(1). For: use of previously developed land, limited weight because it "occupies part of the approved car park to the neighbouring residential terrace rather than wholly vacant or underutilised land" (DL ¶19). Against: "This harm would be long lasting and is contrary to Policy TR6 of the Framework. I therefore attach significant weight to this harm" (DL ¶20). "the benefits of granting planning permission are substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶21). The S4(2)(c) trigger is not expressly used.
What made the difference
The store took the visitor parking of the neighbouring terrace and left a layout that failed even on the appellant's own swept paths. A nil accident record did not answer a new source of movements at a poor access.
Transferable points
- An "unacceptable" highway safety impact under TR6 can come from a small increase in movements at an access with restricted visibility, despite a clean accident record (DL ¶12–13).
- Parking on land outside the red line and the appellant's control cannot be secured by condition (DL ¶8).
- The benefit of reusing developed land is limited where the land is in active use as approved parking (DL ¶19).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR6 | fail | significant | storage unit removed three visitor spaces for an adjoining terrace; substandard bays and manoeuvring; extra movements at an access with restricted visibility; unacceptable highway safety impact; paragraph (4) not cited by number (DL 7-13, 20) |
| S4(1) | fail | benefits substantially outweighed by the highway safety harm (DL 18-21) | |
| DP3 | accord | single-storey flat-roofed unit acceptable in a mixed local centre; neutral in the balance (DL 14-17, 19) | |
| L2 | benefit | limited | mapped: reuse of previously developed land, but on part of an approved car park, not vacant or underused land; L2 not named (DL 19) |
Key facts
- Storage unit built on part of the parking area approved for three recently built dwellings; six spaces remain with no disabled bay (DL 7)
- Spare capacity in nearby car parks could not be relied on as that land is outside the red line and the appellant's control (DL 8)
- Swept paths used a 4.3 m car, not 4.8 m, and still showed overhang and manoeuvring within other bays (DL 9)
- Appellant accepted the eastern access has restricted visibility; no recorded accidents (DL 11-12)
- Revised Framework "considered"; no mention of consulting the parties (DL 4)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.