- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: G Sylvester
- Authority
- Southend-on-Sea (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6009119
- Application reference
- 26/00116/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Use of a corner plot as a hand car wash with a new acoustically screened shelter for jet washing and valeting, and retention of demountable cabins
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- P3, S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy 2007 KP2, CP4, Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM3
- Main issues
- living conditions; noise and disturbance; S4 balance
Summary
A hand car wash on a corner plot in a mainly residential part of Southend, with a proposed acoustically screened shelter for jet washing. The inspector heard the jet washing on site, found it intrusive against a quiet background, and was not satisfied the open-sided shelter would do more than modestly reduce it. The meanwhile use got substantial weight under L2, but the P3 noise harm substantially outweighed it under S4. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "My decision is made in the context of the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
- Main issue framed in S4 terms. The second issue is "whether the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by those adverse effects" (DL ¶3).
- Noise, P3: CONFLICT. "Noise from jet washing was the dominant noise source in the surrounding area and was clearly audible above the sound of passing traffic" (DL ¶11). "I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the proposed shelter would have anything more than a modest attenuating effect on the noise from jet washing" (DL ¶15).
- Below the formal threshold. "Even if the jet washing noise did not reach the threshold of a significant observed adverse effect level in the Noise Policy Statement for England, I consider that it would give rise to adverse effects on the living conditions of occupants of nearby residential properties" (DL ¶18).
- Plan consistency. "Those policies are consistent with Policy P3 of the Framework insofar as development proposals should not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise" (DL ¶21).
- L2 benefit: substantial. "In accordance with Policy L2 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of the appeal proposal" (DL ¶23).
Planning balance
S4(1). "those benefits are substantially outweighed by its adverse effects and the conflict with Policy P3 of the Framework" (DL ¶24). No "should be refused" trigger is cited: a single P3 conflict outweighs benefits given substantial weight.
What made the difference
The shelter was open on its long side facing the road, so the car, the operative and the nozzle would be at or beyond the open edge. The inspector's own experience of the noise on site, matching the Environmental Health Officer and the previous inspector, counted for more than the modelled reduction.
Transferable points
- A P3 noise conflict alone can substantially outweigh L2 substantial-weight benefits under S4(1), with no refusal trigger (DL ¶23–24).
- Noise harm can be found below the significant observed adverse effect level where the noise is distinctive and unpredictable (DL ¶17–18).
- A meanwhile use pending redevelopment attracts L2 substantial weight (DL ¶23).
- The prospect of a site becoming untidy if a use stops is not a benefit of keeping it (DL ¶25).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | conflict | jet washing noise distinctive, intrusive and unpredictable against a low background; a shelter open on the side facing the road would have no more than a modest attenuating effect; not shown that the use could operate without unacceptable harm to nearby residents (DL 10-21) | |
| L2 | benefit | substantial | economically beneficial meanwhile use pending redevelopment under an extant permission for commercial space and eight flats; modest employment and a service in demand; "In accordance with Policy L2 of the Framework, substantial weight" (DL 23) |
| S4(1) | fail | benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects and the conflict with P3; framed as a main issue in S4 terms (DL 3, 22, 24) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | local amenity policies "are consistent with Policy P3 of the Framework"; Annex A not cited (DL 21) |
Key facts
- Earlier retrospective scheme dismissed on appeal in February 2026 (APP/D1590/W/25/3375137); the new element is acoustic screening to the shelter (DL 4-5)
- Inspector compared the noise with and without the use operating during the site visit; complaints had been made to the Council (DL 6-12)
- Harm found even if the noise is below the significant observed adverse effect level in the Noise Policy Statement for England; noise modelling alone does not capture its character (DL 17-18)
- Risk of the land falling into disrepair given no weight; councils have powers over untidy land (DL 25)
- Parties commented on the revised Framework (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.