Appeal 6005483

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application form indicates that the development commenced in 2017. The application is therefore retrospective in nature. It was also apparent from my site visit that the development is operational. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The planning application form stated that the appellant was the sole owner of the land, whereas the appeal form indicated partial ownership of the site. The appellant has since corrected the ownership certificate during the appeal process and notice of the development has been served. I am therefore satisfied that all interested parties have had the opportunity to comment.

The appellant has submitted new evidence in the form of business rate records and copies of e-mails in relation to the use of the appeal site. It is not within the scope of this appeal to determine the lawful use of the site. Regardless of whether the current owners made no changes following their purchase and continued the business, my role is to assess the acceptability of the development against the development plan and all other material considerations in order to determine whether planning permission should be granted.

Additional evidence relating to an approved development at the site in 1995 (the 1995 approval)1, a noise impact assessment and [address] extracts from 2012 and 2024 have also been submitted with the appeal. This new evidence does not result in a substantial or fundamental change to result in a different application. The Council has also had the opportunity to comment. Given its nature, the acceptance of this new evidence would not deprive those who should have been consulted of the opportunity of such consultation. I have therefore considered it in determining this appeal. 1 Council Ref: 95/00195/FUL

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • The character and appearance of the area; • Parking and highway safety; and, • The living conditions of nearby occupants with regard to noise.

The appeal site contains a long, single-storey building, part of which is used for vehicle repairs and part for car washing. The other building on the site serves as an office. The remaining areas are used as a yard and for storage. The site occupies a prominent corner position at the junction of [address] and [site address] and is clearly visible from public vantage points. Although [site address] currently functions as a dead end, it will in due course provide access to a large housing development, which I observed to be well advanced in construction. As a result, the road will become a through route, increasing the site’s visibility. While there are industrial units beyond the railway line, the immediate surrounding area is predominantly residential.

The single-storey buildings are of limited design quality. While steel frames, metal sheet cladding and brickwork are typical of industrial construction, the mixture of materials in this case results in a utilitarian and somewhat ad hoc appearance. This is incongruous in this local context, which is generally defined by brick-built housing. The metal palisade fencing does not sufficiently screen or soften the development. As the buildings extend above the height of the boundary treatment and have a wide footprint, they have a dominant and exposed presence. The visibility of parked cars also further reinforces the site’s overtly commercial appearance.

Owing to the design, scale and lack of effective screening, the development is visually intrusive. It therefore fails to integrate with the street scene in an acceptable manner to the detriment of the local character and context, which is significantly harmful. Whilst the 1995 approval related to the erection of a car wash facility on the site, the approved plans provided by the Council indicate that the design differs from the development now before me. As such, it is not directly comparable. This earlier permission carries only limited weight and does therefore not weigh in favour of the current development.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it conflicts with parts i. and ii. of Policy 28S, parts i. and ii. of Policy 29 and parts i. and ii. of Policy 30 of the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan 2030 (the Local Plan). These policies, amongst other things, seek development that is of a high quality design, has a positive relationship with the surrounding area and respects the context.

Given that [site address] will provide access to the large housing development, it is reasonable to anticipate an increase in traffic using this route, together with greater pressure for on-street parking provision, even if it is currently not heavily used. There is limited information on customer numbers, activity levels, or deliveries. Repairs and servicing typically require vehicles to be left on site for a period of time, which could result in the accumulation of vehicles. A car wash operation could attract a steady flow of customers throughout the day. The development could also require deliveries from service vehicles.

The development is therefore likely to give rise to both short-stay and longer-stay parking demand, as well as any parking requirements for staff. Although the site is large, no parking plan has been provided to demonstrate capacity or how spaces would be allocated. The site has two accesses, but no tracking details have been submitted to show that vehicles can enter and exit in a forward gear, which raises highway safety concerns given the likely increase in traffic and on-street parking along [site address] .

For these reasons, it has not been demonstrated that the site has sufficient on-site parking, and manoeuvrability can be achieved. In the absence of such information, it cannot be concluded that the development does not have a harmful effect on highway safety. Accordingly, it does not meet the requirements of parts i. and iv. of Policy 31 of the Local Plan, which requires consideration to be given to parking provision, safety and the suitability of access arrangements to and within the development for service vehicles.

The site is next to the housing on [address] and [address]. The development has the potential to generate noise from vehicle repairs and servicing, including the use of tools and machinery, as well as from car washing activities such as pressure washers, vacuum equipment, and vehicles queuing with engines running. The combined effect of these activities could result in noise levels that are noticeable and harmful to the living conditions of nearby occupants.

Noise impact assessments are typically specific to the proposed use and any associated mitigation measures. Although a noise impact assessment from the 2023 planning application2 has been submitted, it relates to a different form of development. As such, the nature and characteristics of this development differ, likely resulting in a different noise profile. The predicted noise levels from that earlier scheme cannot be relied upon to assess the impacts of the current development. Furthermore, an assessment carried out in 2023 is unlikely to reflect current site conditions or the surrounding context. This previous noise impact assessment can therefore not be relied upon for this development.

For these reasons, in the absence of an up-to-date noise impact assessment specific to the development, it has not been demonstrated that the development does not harm the living conditions of nearby occupants in terms of noise. Accordingly, the development conflicts with part i. of Policy 32 of the Local Plan, which requires development proposals to ensure that they take account of the effects of disturbance, giving particular attention to noise. 2 Council Ref: 23/02239/FUL

Matters relating to enforcement and the appropriate next steps should be discussed directly with the Council.

There is limited information regarding job creation and levels of employment. In the absence of details on customer numbers, it is also difficult to assess the development’s economic contribution and the extent to which it supports economic growth. Potential benefits, such as meeting customer needs and supporting the vitality of the area, have not been clearly evidenced or quantified in the appeal submission. As such, while some social and economic benefits are acknowledged, the lack of robust supporting information means that they can only be afforded limited weight and do not outweigh the harm identified or the conflict with the

The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.