Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 25 January 2016
by S. Ashworth BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 23 February 2016
Appeal Ref: APP/X1925/W/15/3134103
The Rose Gardens, Cambridge Road, Hitchin, Hertfordshire SG4 0JX




The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by GFL Management & Wyevale GC against the decision of North
Hertfordshire District Council.
The application Ref 15/01485/1, dated 2 June 2015, was refused by notice dated
10 August 2015.
The development proposed is continued use and reconfiguration of yard for car wash
layout, with installation of two canopies, and cabins for customer waiting/office/rest
room and secure storage and screen fences.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. The use and structures which form the subject of the appeal are already in
place. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.
Main Issues
3. The main issues in this case are:
1. Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the
Green Belt, for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) and development plan policy;
2. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and
purposes of the Green Belt;
3. Whether or not there are other considerations weighing in favour of the
proposed development; and,
4. If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason
of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other
considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary
to justify it.
Reasons
4. The site lies within a complex of buildings and businesses, including pet shop,
former wine merchants and a caravan and mobile home business centred
around a well-established garden centre and accessed off Cambridge Road. The
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/X1925/W/15/3134103
complex is located in an area of open countryside between Hitchin and
Letchworth, within the Hertfordshire Green Belt.
5. Policy 2 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations
1996, seeks to resist development in the Green Belt except for development
within settlements, or in very special circumstances, and which would not
result in significant visual impact. This policy predates the Framework which
was introduced in 2012 and is not entirely consistent with it. Accordingly it
carries limited weight in the consideration of this appeal.
6. The Framework advises that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to
prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential
characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
Inappropriate development, it states, is, by definition, harmful to the Green
Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The
construction of new buildings is regarded as inappropriate except in certain
defined circumstances set out in paragraphs 89 and 90.
7. Bullet point 6 of paragraph 89 includes, as an exception, ‘limited infilling or the
partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield
land) whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings),
which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and
the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.’
8. The glossary to the Framework describes previously developed land as land
which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of
the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the
curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.
Evidence submitted with the appeal indicates that the area where the car wash
facility is located, which is bound on three sides by buildings, was previously
used as a storage yard in association with the garden centre. Photographs
indicate that it accommodated a shipping container and various items stacked
and stored outside. As the use was ancillary to the garden centre which is a
permanent building, and within its curtilage, the site, in my judgement,
constitutes previously developed land.
9. Openness in a Green Belt context can be taken to mean an absence of visible
development or manifestation of a use. The canopies associated with the use
are substantial structures that form a covered space. In addition, the boarding
attached to the fence creates a boundary treatment of a more solid
appearance. Although the canopies are visible only in glimpsed views, the
boarding is clearly visible from outside the site. I accept the appellant’s point
that the site does not lie in an open landscape but nevertheless for the above
reasons, the proposal has a greater impact on openness than the previous use.
10. The purposes of the Green Belt are set out at paragraph 80 of the Framework.
Amongst other things, the Green Belt serves to prevent neighbouring towns
merging into one another and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging
the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The proposal would not extend
the built development on the site further than its existing limits. However, it
would intensify both the use of site and the amount of built development on it,
albeit that the development would not be of a solid building mass. As such the
proposal would consolidate development at the site. Given that the appeal site
is located within a small rural gap between the built-up areas of Letchworth
and Hitchin, the consolidation of development would not assist in preventing
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2
Appeal Decision APP/X1925/W/15/3134103
the neighbouring towns merging. Furthermore, a rural location is not
necessary for a car wash business, which is more typically found in a town
centre location. Consequently the proposal would not assist in the regeneration
of urban areas.
11. As the proposal has a harmful effect on openness and undermines the purposes
of the Green Belt, it does not therefore fall within the exception at bullet point
6. Nor does it fall within any other exception. As such it constitutes
inappropriate development. The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate
development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.
Character and Appearance
12. The structures, including the canopies and boarding are coloured bright green
and white which, in my judgement, does not relate well to the site’s rural
context. Although the site is partly hidden from view by the existing buildings,
the canopies, boarding and signage associated with the use are all visible and
therefore there is some, limited, degree of harm to the character and
appearance of the area. I have taken into account the appellant’s suggestion
that the colour scheme could be re-thought although it is not clear how this
would be achieved without replacing the structures.
13. Consequently there is a limited degree of harm arising from the impact of the
development on the character and appearance of the area to add to that of
inappropriateness.
Other Considerations
14. The Framework at chapter 3 seeks to support economic growth in rural areas.
The car wash business employs 1 full time and 3 part time workers. This
matter can be given moderate weight in favour of the scheme.
15. The car wash is likely to be used by the garden centre customers and would
therefore be an additional service to visitors. However, as car wash facilities
are normally found urban areas, it is not clear to what extent the car wash
would support the garden centre economically or operationally. This limits the
weight I can give to it as a benefit of the scheme.
Conclusion
16. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The
Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to
the Green Belt. In addition there would be limited harm to the character and
appearance of the area.
17. On the other hand the proposal has some economic benefit. This other
consideration however, only attracts moderate weight and does not therefore
clearly outweigh the totality of the harm, which is the test that has to be met.
Consequently very special circumstances do not exist. For the reasons given,
the overall conclusion is that the appeal should be dismissed.
S Ashworth
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
3