Appeal 6003419

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development set out in the planning application form submitted to the Council sought a variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) pursuant to planning permission reference 25/00168/VARYCO dated 20 May 2025. This is clearly an error, as the condition relating to approved plans is Condition 1. This permission granted under Section 73 was itself a variation of the parent permission for the car wash facility under reference 23/00914/FUL, which included a Condition 2 relating to approved plans. This is likely the source of the discrepancy. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that it seeks the variation of Condition 1 ([name]) of planning permission reference 25/00168/VARYCO dated 20 May 2025.

The canopy which is the subject of this appeal was in place at the time of my site visit. I have determined the appeal based on the submitted drawings, which are substantially in accordance with the development as built on site.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is occupied by an operating car wash and valeting enterprise. It is positioned in a prominent corner location at the junction between the B1505 and [site address] . The area is largely suburban in character however this stretch of the main road is mixed in character, containing a significant number of commercial premises of different scales and activities.

There is residential development opposite the appeal site, and the predominantly three-storey Evergreen apartment development occupies the majority of the land to the rear. I have considered a previous appeal1 decision provided relating to the site, which addressed the issue of its character. At that time, the Inspector concluded that there was a distinct change in character to the south of the appeal site, where commercial and military buildings are enclosed by tall railings and security fencing, in contrast to the predominantly residential character to the north side of [site address] .

I have reviewed the previous Inspector’s assessment, albeit that this related to a different proposal on the site and consider that the character of the site and this stretch of road has since evolved. At the time of the earlier decision, the car wash and valeting enterprise did not exist and the site was vacant. The presence of the car wash has introduced a more commercial character. As a result, whilst the Inspector’s conclusions at that time were valid, the current use of the site as a car wash, including the installation of fencing similar to that on the car lot to the south of [site address] , together with the takeaway unit to the north, means that the previously predominant residential character north of [site address] has been eroded. Consequently, there is no longer a clear distinction between the character of the land uses to the north and the more commercial uses to the south.

The open-sided canopy is significant in scale and particularly due to its installation angle, makes a significant visual addition to the street scene, despite its partial transparency resulting from the open-sided elevations.

Its visibility and prominence are further enhanced by the relatively uniform rear context of the site when viewed from the west, formed by the Evergreen development and the side elevation of the takeaway unit. This backdrop contrasts noticeably with the colour and materials of the canopy, drawing further attention to it. Importantly, the canopy’s positioning directly adjacent to the carriageway on [site address] , combined with its projection beyond the established building line set by the apartment block to the east, serves to maximise its visibility and contributes to its obtrusive appearance within the site.

[name] accept that canopies are a typical feature of car wash and valeting facilities and indeed industrial sites more generally, serving a functional role in protecting 1 APP/P2935/W/21/3285662. both vehicles and staff during cleaning operations and are generally utilitarian in character, this does not mean that all such features do not need to be assessed objectively within its context. In this instance, a key factor contributing to the identified harm is the canopy’s siting within the site.

The appellant correctly identifies the presence of large commercial structures to the south of [site address] ; however, in contrast to the canopy, these are set back from the road. This arrangement serves to reduce their visual impact considerably, whereas the canopy’s forward positioning increases its prominence and visual intrusion within the street scene.

I note that the Council does not object in principle to the provision of a canopy at the car wash facility and has indicated that such a structure could be accommodated in a less obtrusive manner. However, my role is to determine the development as submitted, which places the canopy in its current position on the site.

Notwithstanding the conclusions reached by the appellant’s submitted Design and Visual Impact Assessment (DVIA), and the Council’s analysis of the developments visual impact, I have formed my own independent conclusions on this matter. These are based on my site visit, a review of the submitted drawings, submitted material and the exercise of my professional planning judgement.

I note that the DVIA does not specifically assess the visual impact of the development on surrounding residential occupiers as part of its methodology. While noting its conclusion that there are no sensitive residential viewpoints where expectations of visual amenity would be significantly higher than those of passers-by or visitors to commercial uses in the area. Views from residential dwellings are experienced statically, repeatedly and over longer periods of time meaning the potential for harm associated with such views is significant. There are several dwellings to the immediate west of the appeal site directly facing the canopy.

The appeal site occupies a transitional position between residential and more commercially oriented uses; however, the development fails to respond appropriately to this interface. It does not make a positive contribution to local character or distinctiveness, nor does it adequately acknowledge the relationship between neighbouring land uses in a manner that is sympathetic to its context. In this instance, the scale, siting and design of the development result in a form of built development that fails to integrate with the prevailing character of the area, appearing visually intrusive within its setting and giving rise to harm, particularly in terms of outlook from surrounding residential properties.

For the reasons outlined above, the development conflicts with Policy QOP1 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2022 (the Local Plan). This policy seeks to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, maintains a harmonious relationship between built and natural features, and is visually attractive using high-quality materials and detailing. The development fails to meet these requirements. It also does not address paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which amongst other things states that development must function well but also add to the overall quality of the area.

Local Plan Policy QOP2 further requires that developments satisfy a range of criteria, taking into account any relevant cumulative effects and potential mitigation measures. In particular, it states that the physical presence and design of development should not result in a visually obtrusive or overbearing impact on neighbouring uses. It also emphasises that the best possible outcomes in terms of outlook should be achieved wherever possible. For the reasons set out above, this is not achieved in terms of obtrusiveness and achieving best possible outcomes in terms of outlook and therefore conflicts with Policy QOP2.

Furthermore, the development would neither respect nor enhance the qualities of the suburban townscape, nor would it provide a high-quality form of development. Consequently, the development is also considered to be contrary to Policy CNP3 of the Cramlington Neighbourhood Plan (2020).

I am not persuaded that a dismissal of the appeal would result in the sterilisation of the site. I have not been presented with evidence to demonstrate that the car wash and valeting facility would be required to cease operating if the canopy were not provided in its current form and position and there would therefore be significant harm to this commercial enterprise. I therefore attach limited weight to these considerations.

I have also noted that there are no technical objections to the development, for example in relation to highways safety or impacts upon the living conditions of surrounding occupiers, such as through overbearing effects. In this regard, the Council did not identify such matters within its reason for refusal, and they do not weigh in favour of the development.

I find that the development is contrary to the development plan read as a whole and there are no material considerations to outweigh the conflict. The appeal is dismissed.