Shropshire B8 storage appeal fails on evidence

The Shropshire B8 storage appeal has been dismissed after an Inspector found insufficient evidence to establish whether land at a former oil depot could lawfully operate as a general storage site. The 9th October 2026 decision is a warning about relying on historic planning labels rather than the activities actually carried out.

Tern Valley Storage Ltd sought a certificate of lawful existing use for B8 storage and distribution at Gulf Bungalow, Sutton Road, Tern Hill, near Market Drayton. Shropshire Council had refused the application, but the Inspector did not simply endorse its assertion that the commercial operation represented an unlawful change from an oil depot.

Inspector D A Hainsworth examined two possible routes to establishing lawfulness. He concluded that neither could be properly tested without a fuller record of past and present activity. The finding matters to depot owners, commercial yards and businesses seeking to confirm long-established uses.

Shropshire B8 storage appeal turns on actual activities

The application, reference 25/01643/CPE, was made on 30th April 2025 under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It sought certification of an existing storage and distribution use on land associated with a former oil storage depot. Shropshire Council refused it on 3rd July 2025.

The principal permissions dated from 1965, authorising conversion of an existing RAF building and construction of a bungalow for an oil depot, and 1979, when petroleum and gas oil tanks and a loading gantry were approved. The complete documents and conditions for these permissions were not available to the Inspector.

Other land formerly associated with the depot had subsequently been used for haulage and commercial activities. An application for a separate area to be recognised as a business park had been refused in 2007. That history was relevant, but did not establish what had happened on the particular appeal land.

The adjoining house was a distinct planning consideration. It received a lawful development certificate in 1999, recognising independent residential occupation unrelated to the depot. The Inspector made clear that the dwelling fell outside the red line of the present application. Confusing the two areas would undermine any analysis of the commercial use.

Two legal routes, one evidential problem

One possibility was that the authorised oil depot and the current general storage operation fell within the same use class. Section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act generally excludes changes between purposes within the same use class from the definition of development, subject to the relevant statutory provisions.

There was a historic classification problem. Class B8 did not exist when the original depot permissions were granted. The Inspector identified the earlier Class X, covering wholesale warehousing or a repository, as the nearest predecessor. It would be unsafe simply to project the current B8 classification backwards without examining the particular activities authorised and undertaken.

The alternative was that the oil depot had operated as a sui generis use. On that analysis, a move to general storage might be a material change of use needing planning permission. The deciding issue would be whether the character of activities, and their planning effects, differed significantly from the authorised operation.

Neither description automatically determined the result. Oil was stored at the former depot, but it would not necessarily follow that every later storage activity was within the same planning use. Equally, using a different commercial name would not alone establish a material change. The particular operational facts had to be compared.

Why the evidence did not meet the certificate test

The Inspector found that the parties had devoted most of their submissions to the legal significance of the site’s planning history. Too little evidence described the actual operations over time. Without that factual material, he could not determine whether the current activity fell within a continuing lawful use or represented a material change.

Relevant evidence would have explained what goods were stored, in which buildings or yards, at what scale, and for what purpose. It would also have addressed whether goods arrived for storage alone or for subsequent distribution, the pattern of vehicle movements, operating hours, noise and effects on neighbouring occupiers.

Another gap was the chronology. If different operators occupied the land, their activities needed separate description. Any interruptions, intervening uses, physical alterations or changes in the character of occupation could matter. Planning permissions can establish entitlement, but they do not replace evidence of what was actually done on site.

The Inspector said a factual focus was required, including alterations in the site’s appearance and effects on and beyond the land. The applicant had not provided enough detail. The appeal therefore failed because the statutory burden of proof had not been discharged.

For a section 191 application, the applicant must demonstrate the position on the balance of probabilities. The council has responsibilities to supply relevant material within its possession, but the applicant remains responsible for providing a sufficiently precise and convincing account of the use for which a certificate is requested.

What the dismissal does not decide

This was a lawful development certificate appeal under section 195, not a planning application seeking permission for a new depot use. Questions about commercial desirability, economic benefits or whether the business ought to receive permission were outside the legal test.

The Inspector did not conclusively find that all historic depot activities were sui generis, that the present use was necessarily a material change, or that every storage use on the site was unlawful. Rather, the available information was inadequate to reach a positive finding that the specifically described activity was lawful.

That is a material distinction for anyone assessing enforcement risk. National Planning Practice Guidance on lawful development certificates expressly recognises that refusal can reflect insufficient evidence, rather than a definitive finding of unlawfulness. A subsequent application may be possible if stronger evidence becomes available, although any later proposal must be assessed on its own facts.

Businesses should not mistake the absence of a certificate for a planning permission, or vice versa. A certificate proves a specific legal position when justified; a planning application is considered through the development management process and includes planning merits.

Practical lessons for storage sites and commercial yards

Applicants should collect operational evidence before choosing a legal argument. Dated leases, stock records, goods-in and dispatch logs, invoices, historic plans, business accounts, photographs, licence conditions and statements from people with direct knowledge can help establish both the nature and continuity of use.

A chronological statement ought to identify the boundaries of each planning unit and describe changes of activity rather than simply listing owners and businesses. It should distinguish storage incidental to another use from an independent storage and distribution operation, and reconcile the evidence with the land and buildings covered by previous permissions.

For historic industrial sites, an expert should also investigate the Use Classes Order in force at each relevant date. Older terms such as warehouses, repositories and depots may not correspond exactly with the current terminology. It is the authorised and actual land use, not the label alone, that matters.

If the factual position remains uncertain, the applicant should identify the weaknesses rather than asserting certainty. There may be a choice between producing more evidence for a certificate and pursuing a new planning application. That decision turns on the merits, timing and enforcement position of the particular site.

The general lesson from Tern Hill is straightforward: classification is the final legal exercise, not a substitute for factual investigation. A convincingly documented B8 case may succeed elsewhere, but a stack of historic permissions cannot by itself prove what has occurred on the ground.

Appeal decision and further guidance

The source is Shropshire B8 storage appeal APP/L3245/X/25/3372891, decided on 9th October 2026. The Planning Inspectorate case record is the official appeal route. This is an Inspector’s decision, not a court judgment or binding legal precedent.

For related advice, see Planning Geek’s change of use guidance and planning application resources. Each site’s lawfulness depends on the individual permissions, statutory provisions and evidence.