Car display areas and fence at Anthony Betts & Co Ltd, Water End, Hemel Hempstead

What was proposed

Permission was sought to retain two paved areas for additional vehicle display and parking, together with a two-metre-high boundary fence.

“The application seeks permission for the retention of two areas of buff blocked paved hardstanding to be used as additional car display areas and for the retention of a 2m high fence.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a car showroom and workshop in the Green Belt, beside a conservation area, protected trees, neighbouring businesses and Water End Moor.

“The site comprises the Anthony Betts and Company Limited car showroom, workshop building and associated car display and parking areas, situated off Leighton Buzzard Road in Water End, Hemel Hempstead. The site falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt, adjacent to the Water End Conservation Area Boundary and is sited opposite the boundary of the Chilterns National Landscape (CNL).”

“The site also falls within a Former Land Use risk zone for ground contamination and part of the eastern site boundary is lined with protected trees, (subject to Tree Protection Order 188). The Red Lion Public House sits to the north-west of the site, whilst neighbouring business Apsley and…”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

An earlier application was refused and both related appeals were dismissed, although vehicles could continue to be displayed and the outstanding concern was tree impact.

“The Applicant subsequently appealed the Council’s decision to refuse the application and the related enforcement notice, (see appeal reference APP/A1910/C/24/3348493). A combined decision letter was issued to the Council, confirming the enforcement notice to be upheld, (subject to corrections and variations), and the above referenced appeal to be dismissed.”

“The current application seeks permission for the retention of the additional car display areas, (with associated buff blocked paving), and for the installed timber fencing. The current scheme seeks to address the Inspectors’ outstanding concern in relation to existing trees.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the development was acceptable in principle and its effects on appearance, heritage, landscape, homes, highways, parking and trees were acceptable.

“The development is considered to be acceptable in principle, amounting to appropriate development in the Green Belt in accordance with exception g), Paragraph 154 of the NPPF (2024).”

“On balance, having regard to the nature and scale of the development and the context within which it is perceived, it is not considered that the development is detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding area, the Chilterns National Landscape or designated heritage assets.”

Officer report

Main objections and support

The Parish Council challenged the tree assessment, fence height, application drawings, drainage and biodiversity position, while neighbours said the works supported the business.

“Three neighbours have commented in support of the application, indicating that the development is not considered to be visually harmful and supports the growth and viability of the existing business.”

“The Arboricultural Impact Assessment is inaccurate as it fails to account for trees felled in connection with the development; • The proposal should be subject to the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain requirement; • The application is incomplete and inadequate, failing to show the extent of the paved areas, alterations to ground levels and incorrectly shows the height of the installed fence; and • The proposal could amount to the harmful discharge of surface water into…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The case officer introduced the application, and an objector addressed the committee.

The committee vote

The motion to grant permission was proposed and seconded, then passed with seven votes for, none against and one abstention.

“[name withheld] spoke in objection to the application. It was proposed by Councillor Guest and seconded by Councillor Anderson to GRANT the application.”

“Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED. RECOMMENDATION”

Minutes

The decision and condition

Planning permission was granted with a condition requiring approval of an external-lighting scheme before any external lighting was installed.

“It is recommended that the application be GRANTED. Condition(s) and Reason(s): There shall be no external lighting on the hardstanding and boundary fence hereby permitted unless an External Lighting Scheme is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The External Lighting Scheme shall detail the location, design, type, height, lux level, light coverage, and measure to avoid light spillage of any external lighting.”

Minutes