Case 3365573

Part of land and building, 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, HG1 4LQ

North Yorkshire Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
25 July 2025
Authority
North Yorkshire Council
Inspector
Robbie K
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Unknown
Development type
Minor retail and services
Appellant
Mr Rusool & Mr Khader
LPA reference
ZC24/03948/FUL
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
23 May 2025

Summary AI

The appeal for a car wash and valet facility on 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, was dismissed due to concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties' living conditions. The proposed car wash and valet facility would operate seven days a week and generate noise from car engines, doors slamming, and radios, which may not have been adequately considered in the Noise Impact Assessment.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Part of land and building, 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, HG1 4LQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2025 by K L Robbie BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 July 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/W/25/3365573 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG1 4LQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Adnan Rusool & Mr Mohammed Khader against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application reference is ZC24/03948/FUL. • The development proposed is the change of use of part of land and building to car wash and valet bay and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I observed during my site visit that the change of use had occurred, and the site in use as a car wash and valet facility. I have consequently dealt with the appeal on the basis the development has already occurred and is in operation as I observed. 3. The planning application was made in the name of Rusool & Khader; however it was clarified when the appeal was lodged that the appellants names are Mr Adnan Rusool and Mr Mohammed Khader. I am satisfied that the appeal should proceed in these names. Main Issue 4.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Part of land and building, 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, HG1 4LQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, specifically 85 Skipton Road, with particular regard to noise. Reasons 5. The appeal site is on a busy through route within the town of Harrogate. This section of the road is predominantly residential in character, with offices and commercial uses interspersed within terraces of two-storey housing. The appeal proposal involves the change of use of part of the premises to a car wash and valet facility which operates seven days per week. 6. A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been carried out which states that a full jet wash and valet took place. It is not clear from the NIA where this was carried out. Furthermore, the NIA states that it was carried out assuming the use of two jet washers operating simultaneously, however no assumptions have been made regarding the use of vacuum cleaners or other equipment. Moreover, the application does not indicate the number of car washing bays proposed. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Part of land and building, 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, HG1 4LQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/25/3365573 7. I note that NIA monitoring location MP2 is considered as a suitable surrogate monitoring location representative of the noise sensitive receptor (NSR) at 85 Skipton Road (No. 85). However, the Noise Contour Map1 indicates that MP2 would be protected from the highest noise contours by the proposed mitigation. Therefore, I cannot be certain that MP2 is representative of the NSR at No.85. As a result, I cannot be sure that the living conditions of occupiers of No. 85 would not be adversely affected by the appeal proposal. 8. Although the NIA indicates that noise levels resulting from assumptions would not be intrusive, I cannot be certain that noise and general disturbance generated from the comings and goings of customers to the appeal site which would be likely to include noise from car engines, car doors slamming and car radios and people talking have been accounted for in the NIA, or that the activities on site would be confined to two jet washers. Furthermore, no indication has been given as to whether tonal characteristics in addition to the intermittency of the operations have been considered.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

Part of land and building, 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, HG1 4LQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Although the appellant states that habitable accommodation at first and second floors of NSRs has been taken into consideration, I have no evidence before me to indicate that this was the case. 9. The Council do not dispute the competency of the appellants’ noise consultant, and I have no reason to disagree. However, I am not persuaded that that the information provided robustly demonstrates that noise from the appeal proposal would result in an acceptable noise environment for neighbouring occupiers. I have considered whether the Council’s proposed condition requiring further noise monitoring would overcome these concerns and have concluded that it would not. 10. For the above reasons, there is an unacceptable risk that the operation of the premises as a car wash and valet facility could adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, particularly those at 85 Skipton Road. This would conflict with Harrogate District Local Plan (2010) Policy HP4 which aims to protect the amenity of occupiers and neighbours. Other Matters 11. I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

Part of land and building, 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, HG1 4LQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal. 12. The appellants state that they were unaware that planning permission was required for the change of use of the premises. This is not a matter I can take into account in the determination of the appeal, which I have considered on the basis of what is proposed and its consequent effects. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out and having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other material considerations raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed

Page 2 · Chunk 5 K L Robbie

Part of land and building, 81 Skipton Road, Harrogate, HG1 4LQ — North Yorkshire Council — K L Robbie INSPECTOR 1 Appendix 3 – Noise Impact Assessment ref: NIA-11980-25-12199-v1- Skipton Road (final).docx dated 26th March 2025 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector was not convinced that the proposed mitigation would be effective in protecting the living conditions of the occupants of 85 Skipton Road, as the Noise Contour Map indicated that the surrogate monitoring location MP2 would be protected from the highest noise contours, but the inspector could not be certain that this was representative of the noise sensitive receptor at No. 85.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶8

The inspector was concerned that the Noise Impact Assessment had not adequately considered the noise and general disturbance generated from the comings and goings of customers to the appeal site, which would include noise from car engines, doors slamming, and radios, and that the activities on site would be confined to two jet washers.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶10

The inspector concluded that there was an unacceptable risk that the operation of the premises as a car wash and valet facility could adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, particularly those at 85 Skipton Road, in conflict with Harrogate District Local Plan (2010) Policy HP4.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Harrogate District Local Plan (2010) Policy HP4
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 25 July 2025 under the Open Government Licence.