Storage and distribution building at Hilliers Garden Centre, Hemel Hempstead

The site and surroundings

The site is an existing garden centre, visible from public viewpoints, with links to the River Gade and the Chilterns National Landscape.

“The impact on visual amenity; and • The impact on the Chilterns National Landscape. Impact on Visual Amenity Policy 4.2 The NPPF (2024) states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.”

“Through identifying Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), (i.e. locations at which the site, and therein associated storage, are likely to be publicly visible), this document identifies two key viewpoints at which storage materials will be perceived on the site; to the rear from public vantage points along the Great Gaddesden 057 Public Right of Way (PROW), and from the front of the site along Leighton Buzzard Road.”

Officer report

Earlier committee decision

Members previously resolved to approve the application, after which the developer asked to increase the permitted height of outdoor storage.

“The application was originally presented to Development Management Committee on Thursday 8th January, 2026. A link to the Officer’s Report for that Committee, as well as the Addendum, is attached as Appendix A, outlining the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be DELEGATED with a view to APPROVAL, subject to overcoming the outstanding objection of the Lead Local Flood Authority, (and there being no consequential material changes to the external appearance…”

“Landscape Addendum by Cornus Limited, dated February 2026, (drawing reference CLPD 220 R04b); and • Accurate Visual Representations (AVR): Proposed Storage Area, Proposed Storage Area (TGN06/19) Type 4, AVR Level 1+2 by Troopers Hill Limited, (dated February 2026). On the basis of these documents, the developer seeks to alter the wording of Condition 18; increasing the storage height restriction to match the height of the existing building.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended delegated approval, subject to resolving the flood authority objection, avoiding material external changes and applying conditions including revised storage limits.

“The principle of the change of use of the site from a garden centre/ancillary uses to a B8 use class has previously been considered and deemed acceptable. The proposed increase to the maximum height restriction for storage materials stored within the front and rear yards to match that of the height of the existing building is deemed acceptable, having no adverse impacts on visual amenity grounds or on the Chilterns National Landscape.”

“That planning permission be DELEGATED with a view to APPROVAL, subject to overcoming the outstanding objection of the Lead Local Flood Authority, (and there being no consequential material changes to the external appearance of the development), and the conditions set out in Section 11, (with additional drainage conditions as required by the LLFA and amends to condition 18), and subject to the conditions below:”

Officer report

Storage and landscape effects

Officers concluded that storage up to six metres at the front and 6.75 metres at the rear would not cause significant visual or landscape harm.

“Given that the original Landscape and Visual Appraisal, (drawing reference CLPD 220 R01a), demonstrated that the site would be visible from a number of public vantage points, it was considered reasonable to restrict the height of storage materials in these areas in the interests of protecting the amenity of the area.”

“Views of storage materials to the front of the site would be achieved from public vantage points along Leighton Buzzard Road. Whilst comprising a maximum 6m height, it is views of these additions would largely be filtered by way of new landscaping to the front of the site. Whilst the proposed new landscape buffer would take time to be established, the new landscaped area would be bolstered with larger tree stock from Year 1, (i.e.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Six residents objected over traffic, appearance, overdevelopment, noise, light pollution, loss of the garden centre and the visibility of stored materials.

“- The proposal would cause harmful levels of noise and disturbance and cause noise and light pollution;”

“- The proposal would result in the loss of an existing garden centre which has community value; and…”

Minutes

Who spoke

The case officer introduced the application and explained that it had returned because Condition 18 was being reworded.

The committee vote

Councillor Hobson proposed delegated approval, Councillor Anderson seconded it, and members voted twelve in favour, none against and one abstention.

“It was proposed by Councillor Hobson and seconded by Councillor Anderson to DELEGATE with a view to APPROVAL. Vote:”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was delegated with a view to approval, subject to the flood authority objection, no consequential external changes and the stated conditions.

“Resolved: That planning permission be DELEGATED with a VIEW TO APPROVAL. That planning permission be DELEGATED with a view to APPROVAL, subject to overcoming the outstanding objection of the Lead Local Flood Authority, (and there being no consequential material changes to the external appearance of the development), and the conditions set out in Section 11, (with additional drainage…”

Minutes