Appeal 6002224

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part change of use of the car park to a [name] business with associated washing and drying equipment, office, canopies over, drainage, lighting and signage, at [site address] , [site address] , [address], Maidenhead, Windsor and Maidenhead [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/01140, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and • the effect of the proposal on surface water flood risk.

The appeal site is located at the southwestern edge of the [name] car park. The leisure centre forms part of a wider complex including sporting and leisure facilities and further car parking to the north. Site entry and exit is via the A308 [address] and internal roads.

The proposal involves the partial change of use of the leisure centre car park (including 24 car parking spaces) to a car valet business ([name] use). This includes the erection of canopied washing and drying areas, a container structure to be used as an office/secure area, and a safety screen which would be sited parallel to the proposed washing area.

According to the submitted plans, the proposed canopies would be approximately 2.8m high, 5m deep and 8m wide, with support poles of approximately 3.4m. The container structure would be approximately 2.5m in height and depth, and approximately 6m wide. The safety screen would be approximately 2.5m high and 16m wide.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. Policy QP5 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (adopted 2022) (the Local Plan) states that planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development (as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework), unless very special circumstances are demonstrated; and notes that certain forms of development are not considered inappropriate within the Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless a specific exception applies, as set out in paragraph 154(a to h). The exception at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework relates to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal would comprise partial redevelopment of previously developed land (assessed against the definition set out in Annex 2 of the Framework). To establish whether the proposal would fully address the paragraph 154(g) exception requirements, it is necessary to consider whether the proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out several matters that may need to be taken into account when assessing the impact of a proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, including the spatial and visual aspects of openness and the degree of activity likely to be generated.

The site and surrounding area fall within an urban setting. It is currently open hardstanding, in use as a car park. Existing vegetation to the west of the site acts as a significant barrier to views into and out of the site. This vegetation would largely screen the proposal from views from outside the site looking in, reducing these views to a fleeting glimpse through the pedestrian site entrance which is adjacent to the appeal site. I note that my site visit was conducted in winter when the vegetation was not in leaf; therefore, during spring and summer months when the vegetation would be in leaf, it would likely act as an even more significant barrier.

The proposal would introduce built structures on the site, which would have an effect on openness, although these structures would be modest in terms of their height, volume and footprint, based on the dimensions in the submitted plans. The siting of the structures at the edge of the car park would help to mitigate their impact on the wider openness of the Green Belt, as it would reduce the level of spatial intrusion into more visually prominent parts of the site, making the proposal less conspicuous.

The proposal would involve vehicles being parked within the site on a regular basis, which would have an effect on openness, albeit an effect that is transient in nature.

The proposed canopy structures would be largely open-sided meaning there would be some visibility through the canopy structures when vehicles are not parked there. The proposed container structure would be timber clad meaning it would blend into the adjacent vegetation to a limited degree. The precise finish and details could be secured by condition.

Taking these matters into account, I consider that the proposal would cause only moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to paragraph 154(g) of the Framework, and as a result it would be in accordance with Policy QP5 of the Local Plan.

The appellant has argued that the proposal would constitute an exception under paragraphs 154(b), 154(c) and 154(h) of the Framework. However, as I have found that the proposal is a relevant exception under paragraph 154(g) and would therefore not be inappropriate development, I do not need to examine these arguments in detail.

Based on the information submitted with the appeal, the proposal is not located in an area at risk of flooding and the risk of surface water flooding is low. However, given the potential for intensive water use due to the nature of the proposal, it is necessary to ensure that the proposal incorporates adequate drainage for the management of surface water.

Limited information on the proposed approach to drainage has been provided by the appellant. Further detail is essential to ensure that the proposal includes an appropriate surface water drainage scheme, incorporating sustainable drainage systems where possible, to mitigate surface water flood risk from the development, both on and off site.

Given the general risk from flooding at this site is low, I am satisfied that this further detail can be required through a pre-commencement condition, which will enable the Council to consider the details of any proposed scheme prior to any development taking place.

This approach would accord with Policy NR1 of the Local Plan which relates to managing flood risk and, amongst other things, requires development proposals to incorporate sustainable drainage systems in order to restrict or reduce surface water runoff; and reduce flood risk both within and beyond sites wherever practical.

It would also be consistent with paragraphs 181 and 182 of the Framework, which, amongst other things, state that when determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere; and that applications which could affect drainage on or around the site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems.

The Council briefly refer to the potential for contaminants to enter into the site’s hydrological system as a result of the proposal. However, this issue would be covered by separate regulatory regimes, therefore I do not need to explore it in the context of this planning appeal.

The proposal would support economic growth and lead to increased employment opportunities, which is consistent with section 6 of the Framework. I ascribe this benefit limited weight.

The Framework in paragraph 57 indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The Council has suggested conditions and I have considered these in relation to the Framework and the PPG, amending where necessary in the interests of precision and enforceability.

The standard commencement condition and the plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. I have inserted the plan titles into the Council’s suggested plans condition in the interests of precision, for the avoidance of any doubt on which plans are approved. I have also made amendments to several drawing numbers in the Council’s suggested condition, in order to more accurately reflect the numbers of the drawings submitted with the appeal (which are the same plans upon which the Council made its decision).

A pre-commencement condition requiring the submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme is necessary to mitigate surface water flood risk impacts on and off site. The scheme needs to be submitted and approved before development commences given the nature of the development permitted. The appellant has agreed to this condition.

A condition requiring approval of details of materials is necessary to prevent any adverse visual impacts. The Council’s suggested condition trigger was development above slab level. However, the reference to slab level is not relevant to the development permitted, therefore I have amended the wording to introduce a more appropriate condition trigger.

A condition requiring a report detailing any proposed external lighting scheme is necessary to limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local wildlife.

I have not imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the [name]. This document was not provided as part of the appeal, and therefore it has not been demonstrated that the suggested condition is necessary, relevant to the development to be permitted or reasonable.

I have found that the proposal would be in accordance with the Development Plan read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Drawing no. 00024-05, dated March 2024 – Proposed elevations of external details • Drawing no. 05024-01, [name], dated April 2024 – Location plan • Drawing no. 05024-02, [name], dated April 2024 – Block plan • Drawing no. 05024-04, dated April 2024 – Proposed car park plan

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The design must satisfy the [name] and be compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance.

Prior to the use commencing, details of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

No external lighting shall be installed until a report detailing the external lighting scheme, and how this will not adversely impact upon wildlife, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report (if external lighting is to be installed) shall include the following figures and appendices: • A layout plan with beam orientation. • A schedule of equipment. • Measures to avoid glare. • Proposed lighting timings. The approved lighting plan shall thereafter be implemented as agreed. End of schedule