The Hart storage appeal has been allowed for a vehicle parking and storage site beside Cove Brook in Blackwater, despite part of the land lying within high-risk flood zones. Inspector H Nicholls granted permission on 11 November 2026, but only for business-linked parking on grass, with no new hardstanding or raising of ground levels.
The scheme, promoted by Colour Motion Limited, concerns a roughly 0.35-hectare site off Hawley Road, next to a railway line. The use had already started, although the parking arrangement on the ground differed from the submitted plans. It follows an unsuccessful appeal dismissed on 2 May 2025.
The decision matters because it separates a change of use from physical engineering operations, applies the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework’s countryside-business policy, and explains why neither a separate flood sequential test nor a duplicate biodiversity gain condition was needed on the facts presented.
Why the Hart storage appeal was allowed
Hart District Council refused application 25/01820/FUL for a change of use to vehicle parking and storage. Inspector Nicholls allowed appeal 6010421 following a site visit on 21 October 2026. The permission is not a general commercial car park consent: conditions reserve use for the activities of Colour Motion Limited and keep the land in its grassed condition.
The Hart storage appeal followed an earlier Inspector’s decision concerning a similar use of the same land, appeal APP/N1730/W/24/3353724. The earlier ruling remained relevant, but the proposal before the new Inspector had changed. It no longer included the hardstanding which had formed part of the previous scheme.
Colour Motion is a vehicle repair business operating around 400 metres away on Chapel Lane, on the other side of the local planning authority boundary. It needed somewhere nearby to hold vehicles that could not be accommodated at its main premises. The appellant submitted a search for alternative premises within approximately five kilometres and argued that no suitable, practical or viable option existed without scaling down the business.
Countryside location accepted for an established business
The site falls outside a defined settlement and outside Hart’s designated employment sites. Ordinarily this would create a policy obstacle, but the Inspector considered the location necessary to support an established local business. Its setting was also influenced by existing commercial premises and the railway, making it read as being towards the settlement edge rather than in an isolated open landscape.
In the Hart storage appeal, the Inspector found compliance with Local Plan policy ED3, which supports appropriate economic uses in the countryside, and with national Policy S5(1)(b). That August 2026 policy allows development for rural businesses and services where a countryside location is necessary. This was a site-specific conclusion based on the commercial evidence, not a general exemption for vehicle storage in open countryside.
Our change of use guide explains the difference between changing what land is used for and carrying out the physical works that may also constitute development. In this appeal, the absence of authorised new surfacing was central to the Inspector’s reasoning.
Flood Zones 2 and 3 did not require the sequential test
The appeal land lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3, with some land in the functional floodplain, Flood Zone 3b. The updated flood risk assessment identified that the proposed parking area would avoid the functional floodplain. The scheme was assessed as a less vulnerable use and would not involve infilling, raising levels or laying impermeable surfaces.
The Hart storage appeal therefore turned on two distinct points. The August 2026 Framework sets out categories for which the flood-risk sequential test does not apply, including changes of use. The Inspector treated the parking proposal as falling within that exception. Nor was the exception test required for less vulnerable development outside Flood Zone 3b.
The Inspector was satisfied that the permitted use, confined to grass and away from the functional floodplain, would not displace floodwater or increase risk elsewhere. The proposed use by a single nearby business also involved less public exposure than an ordinary public car park. A condition expressly prohibits hardstanding, gravel surfacing and alterations to ground levels.
This does not establish that all car parks in Flood Zone 3 are acceptable. Whether a sequential or exception test applies depends on the development category, the affected flood zone and the operations being authorised. Planning Geek’s Flood Risk Assessment guide covers the current national tests and their practical application.
Amended plans considered under Wheatcroft and Holborn Studios
The appellant supplied amended plans offering different approaches to the site’s existing surfacing. The Inspector considered whether accepting the revised proposal would prejudice anyone, referring to two judicial authorities: Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982) 43 P&CR 233 and R (Holborn Studios Ltd) v London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin).
The Inspector accepted the amended drawing, reference BA 0277 01 C, without finding procedural prejudice to other parties. Permission was therefore granted on the basis of marked-out grass parking rather than the retention of the informal shingle or hardstanding seen on the visit. That distinction matters: an amendment accepted at appeal does not retrospectively authorise works which the final permission expressly excludes.
The Hart storage appeal shows why the Wheatcroft approach to amendments is not an automatic entitlement to replace the submitted scheme with anything the appellant prefers. The nature of the change and the opportunity for affected parties to respond remain central to the assessment.
BNG condition and strict operational restrictions
The council suggested an additional condition requiring biodiversity net gain (BNG). Inspector Nicholls noted that, where the statutory regime applies, a biodiversity gain plan is already secured by a deemed condition under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Adding a separate condition to repeat that duty was unnecessary.
The Hart storage appeal did not conclusively establish a BNG exemption. The Inspector observed that the grass-only scheme might qualify for a de minimis exemption, depending on the affected habitat. The Inspector left the statutory test to operate where required, rather than declaring BNG inapplicable to every form of this development.
Applicants should distinguish the total area inside the application boundary from habitat actually affected by a proposal and check the exemption and transitional provisions applicable to that application. Planning Geek’s biodiversity net gain guide sets out the current requirements, including the August 2026 amendments.
Six conditions limit the consent. Parking must remain within the approved area and outside Flood Zone 3b; no new hardstanding, gravel or changes to levels are permitted; and specified permitted development rights for fences, hard surfaces and buildings are removed. The land can be accessed only between 07:00 and 22:00, seven days a week, and only for Colour Motion’s business activities, not by members of the public.
The operator must submit an operational management plan within three months. External lighting, CCTV and other security installations would need separate planning permission. The Inspector did not impose additional contamination, landscape or surface-water conditions because the approved grass-only, non-residential use did not justify them on the evidence before the Inspector.
Why an earlier refusal did not prevent permission
The previous Inspector’s decision was a material consideration, but did not bind the new Inspector. Explaining the different conclusion, Inspector Nicholls stated: I am not bound by their conclusions
. The changed proposal, updated flood assessment and current national policy therefore had to be considered on their own merits.
The Hart storage appeal is useful for businesses needing overflow storage near existing premises, but it is not a blanket endorsement of commercial parking on undeveloped land. Here, a credible search for alternatives, a demonstrable functional link to the business and enforceable conditions helped secure permission. A proposal involving surfacing, public parking or a different floodplain layout might have a different outcome.
The decision was issued on 11 November 2026 by Inspector H Nicholls, appeal 6010421. The Planning Inspectorate appeal record contains the decision.
0 Comments