# 14-16 Hendon Rise, Nottingham (two vehicle repair and sales units)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford
- **Authority:** Nottingham (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011302
- **Application reference:** 26/00218/PFUL3
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Creation of two independent garages for vehicle sales, repairs and servicing by subdividing a former car sales premises (retrospective)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P3, S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 2014 Policy 10, Nottingham Land and Planning Policies Local Plan Part 2 2020 DE1, IN2
- **Main issues:** living conditions, noise and vibration
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, noise, retrospective, agent-of-change, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A former car sales premises in Nottingham had been split into two units focused on vehicle repairs and servicing, one sharing a party wall with a house. The appellant's own noise assessment showed a significant impact and offered no mitigation for noise and vibration through the wall. The inspector ran the S4 balance: a small economic benefit under E2 was substantially outweighed by the P3 harm, and P4 gave no support because the uses were not lawful. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have been amended. As a result, parties have been provided with an opportunity to make further submissions" (DL ¶4).
- **Living conditions, P3: CONFLICT, significant weight.** "the noise assessment has failed to demonstrate that mitigation would satisfactorily address the impact on the occupiers of the adjoining property" (DL ¶12). "The scheme has an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.12 and consequently the development is not appropriate for its location, contrary to Policy P3 of the Framework" (DL ¶23).
- **P4 existing businesses: NOT ENGAGED.** "the business operations operating from each of the units do not have planning permission or a relevant lawful development certificate. Consequently, Policy P4 does not weigh in favour of this retrospective scheme" (DL ¶22).
- **E2: small weight.** "given the modest size of the units, a small amount of weight is attached to this benefit" (DL ¶21).

## Planning balance
S4(1), within a settlement. "Overall, the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects and the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL ¶24). No "should be refused" trigger was needed: significant weight to one P3 conflict outweighed a small E2 benefit.

## What made the difference
The party wall. Mitigation was designed for the houses opposite, and nothing addressed the attached house. The appellant's own evidence established the harm.

## Transferable points
- P4 protects "permitted operations of existing businesses"; an unauthorised use seeking retrospective permission cannot rely on it (DL ¶22).
- E2 weight depends on scale: jobs in two modest units got "a small amount of weight", not the substantial weight E2 can carry (DL ¶21).
- A single significant P3 harm can substantially outweigh small benefits under S4(1) without a refusal trigger (DL ¶23–24).
- Conditions that control hours and openings do not answer structure-borne noise through a party wall (DL ¶15).

## Policy findings
- **P3: conflict (significant weight).** noise, disturbance and vibration to the attached house at No 12 through the party wall; the appellant's own noise assessment shows a significant impact and its mitigation (PVC strip curtains) does not address the party wall; "not appropriate for its location" (DL 11-12, 16-17, 23)
- **S4(1): fail.** S3 and S4 set out; benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, "the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL 19-20, 24)
- **E2: benefit (limited weight).** jobs and investment from the subdivision accord with E2, but "given the modest size of the units, a small amount of weight is attached" (DL 21)
- **P4: not-engaged.** P4 protects the permitted operations of existing businesses; the uses have no planning permission or lawful development certificate, so P4 does not weigh in favour of a retrospective scheme (DL 22)

## Key facts
- A 2023 lawful development certificate appeal (APP/Q3060/X/24/3342438) found the lawful use was a single car sales business with ancillary repairs, and that subdivision had created two planning units (DL 9)
- No 12 Hendon Rise is attached to the premises; terraced houses face it across the road (DL 8)
- Complaints to Environmental Health and Planning Enforcement; objectors report noisy machinery through the day and evening, seven days a week (DL 10)
- Noise monitoring was at the front of the units, not the most sensitive location (DL 12)
- Conditions on hours, external working, shutters and machinery would not stop noise through the party wall (DL 15)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011302
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/73cccdbb-e5a0-4233-8ea8-b6759dd2113c

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011302.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.