Appeal 6004633

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposed development in the banner heading above replicates that provided on the planning application form. However, this differs to the description of the development contained on the decision notice, which reads ‘change of use to car wash, erection of canopies, acoustic fencing, drainage system and associated office and storage buildings.’ I have been provided with copies of an email exchange between the main parties in which the Council sought agreement to amend the description. However, I have not been presented with evidence that such approval was agreed. Notwithstanding, the description on the decision notice more accurately reflects the totality of the proposal, and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The appellant has submitted a revised Noise Impact Assessment (NIA)1. This information was not before the Council when it determined the application. The Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England (May 2026) advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that the proposal considered at appeal is, in essence, the same as that considered by the local planning authority and interested parties at the application stage. The revised NIA has been submitted to seek to address the first reason for refusal. Applying the tests established in the Holborn Studios Ltd Judgement2 I am satisfied that the additional material does not amount to a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the scheme that was determined by the Council. Furthermore, as Interested parties and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on the additional material, there would be no injustice to any party were I to consider it. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the revised NIA. 1 Noise Impact Assessment – [name] 30 January 2026 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

For clarity, reference to NIA throughout this decision refers to the revised NIA.

There is some disagreement between the main parties with regard to the height of the proposed acoustic fencing, the Council contends that the proposed fence would be 2.5m tall, the Appellant submits that it would be 2.3m tall. The plans submitted with the appeal indicate a fence of 2.5m 3, the Appellant states this is a typographical error. However, I have not been provided with any amended plans as part of the appeal submission, as such, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans before me and an acoustic fence of 2.5m.

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to the east-facing side kitchen window of No.16 [site address] (No.16). It is clear from the plans, and from my site visit, that this would in fact be the west-facing side kitchen window. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

For clarity, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plan submitted with the appeal, [name]. 1730-P-01 April 2025. I note additional drawings have been provided in the [name] of Case; however, these have not been formally submitted as amended plans for determination as part of the appeal.

The main issues are • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 16, with particular regard to the impact of the height and proximity of the proposed acoustic fencing and canopy structures on the outlook and the level of sunlight entering the side kitchen window, • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the effect of the proposed boundary treatment along [site address] , • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and external lighting, • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of properties in [site address] , with particular regard to vehicular movements associated with the development, and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to the proposed boundary treatment along the pavement edge of [site address] .

The appeal site comprises a former public carpark accessed from [site address] . The site occupies a corner position on the junction of [address] and [site address] . [address] is a main road carrying traffic into Southampton, [site address] is a small residential cul-de-sac.

The site lies on the edge of a mixed-use area. However, the immediate area around the site is predominately residential in character. The nearest residential 3 [name]: 1730-P-01 April 2025 [name] – 2.5m High properties are No. 16 immediately to the east of the site, and a flatted development at No. [address] to the immediate south of the site.

Views into the site from [address] are largely obscured by an existing timber fence and two large poster/advertising boards.

No. 16 is separated from the appeal site by an access passage that runs along the side of the property accessing a rear outbuilding and rear garden. The facing side elevation of No. 16 is located beyond the narrow access passage and contains a kitchen window, as well as a first-floor window

At present the boundary treatment between the properties comprises a traditional boundary fence approximately 1.8m high.

The proposal includes the erection of an acoustic fence along the length of the boundary with No 16, in addition it is proposed to erect 2 canopies of approximately 4m in height along the same boundary.

The proposed acoustic fence, together with the adjacent canopies, would result in a marked change to the outlook from the ground floor window in the side facing elevation of No. 16, appearing unduly dominant and overbearing by reason of their height, scale and proximity. Whilst the window is set back from the shared boundary, I find that this separation distance would be insufficient to mitigate the adverse effects.

I have had regard to the Appellant’s submission that the window serves a kitchen that has a galley arrangement, potentially served by secondary windows and does not incorporate a dining area. Nevertheless, even taking these factors into account, I find that the outlook from the existing window would be materially changed such that it would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 16.

In addition, I have not been provided with any technical assessment, such as a sunlight / overshadowing report to quantify the likely effects. However, having regard to the height and proximity of the proposed structures, together with the orientation of the window, I consider it likely that the proposal would result in a notable degree of overshadowing at certain times of the day. This would further diminish the amenity value of the kitchen and as such would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal, particularly in respect of the acoustic fencing and canopy structures, would result in a detrimental effect on the outlook from, and the level of sunlight entering the side kitchen window. This would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 16. The development would therefore conflict with saved policy SDP1(i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2015 which in so far as is relevant seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions on the residents of the city.

The proposal would result in the site being enclosed on three sides by acoustic fencing, together with acoustic fencing and a centrally positioned sliding access gate along the [site address] frontage. I have not been provided with detailed drawings of the [site address] frontage. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the centrally positioned sliding gate would be of a similar height to the acoustic fencing or else, it would be at odds with the height of the acoustic fencing.

At present, the site is readily visible in views from [site address] . The predominant prevailing character and appearance of [site address] is residential in nature, typically characterised by low to medium level boundary walls and other relatively open frontage treatments.

The introduction of acoustic fencing and a central access gate along the [site address] frontage would appear incongruous in this context and would fail to reflect the established pattern of development. Moreover, it would give rise to a visually inactive and unduly oppressive frontage, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the immediate area.

The potential for planting along the [address] frontage is acknowledged and while this would soften the appearance of the site in views from [address], it would not address the concerns in relation to the [site address] frontage.

I have considered whether the details of the boundary treatment along [site address] could be secured by condition. However, given the role the boundary treatment plays in other matters such as acoustic attenuation and security, I consider that this is a matter that would need to be addressed at this stage of the process.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal, with particular regard to the effect of the proposed boundary treatment along [site address] , would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with saved policy SDP7 and SDP10 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2015 and Policy CS13 of the [name] 2015 which in so far as they are relevant seeks to ensure that development responds positively and integrates with its local surroundings.

In response to concerns raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer at the application stage the revised NIA includes an assessment of the cumulative acoustic impact of plant and equipment operating simultaneously. The NIA also includes a reference to a potential revised layout comprising the positioning of the plant and equipment in a centrally located acoustic enclosure. In this regard, the NIA concludes noise levels from the plant and equipment would be reduced to acceptable levels.

However, there is insufficient evidence before me to enable a full assessment of any additional implications arising from the use of a centrally located acoustic enclosure, including, for example, its potential effects on internal vehicular movements within the site. Moreover, limited information has been provided to demonstrate that the plant and equipment could operate effectively when enclosed in this manner and positioned centrally. In the absence of robust supporting evidence, I can attach only limited weight to the acoustic enclosure.

Furthermore, the NIA does not adequately consider other sources of noise likely to arise from the proposed use, including vehicular movements and general operational activity such as vehicle doors closing and noise generated by workers.

Taking all matters into account, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the noise arising from the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding residential environment.

I have had regard to the Appellant’s submission concerning the lawful use of the site as a former [site address] and the suggestion that the proposal would result in a reduction in vehicle movements and thus an associated reduction in noise and disturbance. However, the nature of the proposed use differs materially from that of a public [site address] , particularly in terms of its operational characteristics and associated noise profile. Consequently, I attach limited weight to this consideration in my assessment.

In relation to external lighting, it is inevitable that such lighting would be required, particularly during the winter months. However, I have not been provided with substantive technical evidence to demonstrate that the site could be illuminated in a manner which would provide a safe working environment whilst also safeguarding the living conditions of nearby occupiers and preserving the character and appearance of the area. I note the points raised by the appellant with regard to existing lighting on the [address] frontage, however, in the absence of technical evidence I have no information before me to facilitate a full assessment of the in-combination effects of the existing and any future lighting.

I have considered whether the details of acoustic attenuation and external lighting could be secured by condition, as well as measures through an operational management plan. However, given the potential wider effects of such measures on the character and appearance of the area, and on the living conditions of nearby residents, I consider that these matters are integral to the acceptability of the proposal. As such, they cannot reasonably be left to be addressed through the imposition of a planning condition.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and external lighting. The development would therefore conflict with saved policy SDP1 (i), SDP16, and SDP17 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2015 which in so far as they are relevant seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the residents of the city.

The proposal makes provision for a single on-site staff parking space, and the submitted plans indicate that cycle storage would also be provided. The Appellant further advises that the business would operate on an online booking basis, with the intention of managing arrivals and departures.

Given the site’s accessible location, I find that the level of on-site parking provision, together with the availability of cycle storage, would be acceptable. On this basis, I have no substantive reason to conclude that staff would be reliant on private motor vehicles or would need to park within surrounding streets.

However, whilst the booking system may go some way to managing visits to the site, it would not preclude ad-hoc arrivals or account for customers arriving early for appointments. Moreover, the site is constrained, with no provision for on-site customer parking and has a single point of access. On the evidence before me, I find it likely that customer vehicles would queue within [site address] , which is a small cul-de-sac.

I have no technical evidence before me to demonstrate that such a scenario would give rise to highway safety concerns, and I note that the Highway Authority did not object to a previous proposal for a similar use of the site. Nevertheless, vehicle queuing within [site address] , even with the existing parking restrictions, would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of occupiers of properties in [site address] with particular regard to vehicular movements associated with the proposal. The proposal would therefore conflict with saved policy SDP1 (i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2015 which in so far as is relevant seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions on the residents of the city.

No elevational plans have been formally submitted showing the [site address] elevation. However, the site plan indicates that the acoustic fencing would extend from either side of the site with a pair of sliding gates to close the site when it’s not in operation.

In response to the reason for refusal, the Appellant has submitted, within the Statement of Case, a site plan labelled as indicative which shows visibility splays. However, the plan lacks sufficient clarity and detail, and I am therefore unable to conclude with any certainty that adequate visibility would be achieved with regard to the [name] TG3 guidance that has been referred to. This is an important consideration given the height of the acoustic fencing and as such, it cannot reasonably be left to be addressed through the imposition of a planning

Accordingly, in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with saved policy SDP1 (i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2015 which in so far as is relevant seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the health and safety of the residents of the city.

Representations have been received in relation to the potential effects of the proposal on drainage and biodiversity. However, I have no substantive technical evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would give rise to concerns in these respects. In any event, given my conclusions on the main issues, it is not necessary for me to consider these matters further.

The appellant refers to a previous decision by the Council to refuse planning permission for the change of use of the appeal site to a car wash (Ref. 23/01390/FUL) and submits that the reasons for refusal in the current case have been expanded. However, my role is to consider the matters in dispute as they arise from the Council’s determination of the proposal that is before me in this appeal.

I have noted the appellant’s submission regarding the alleged lack of engagement by the Council during the course of the application. However, this matter is not relevant to my determination of the appeal.

The proposal would give rise to economic benefits and would bring a previously developed site back into use. These are benefits to which I attach moderate weight. However, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise disturbance, loss of outlook, lighting, loss of sunlight, and the likelihood of queuing traffic. It would also detract from the character and appearance of the area, notably through the introduction of acoustic fencing and gates along the [site address] frontage. Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient technical evidence to the contrary, I am not satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to highway safety concerns. These adverse effects attract substantial weight.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.