A Kempston car sales business has won retrospective planning permission to operate from a former shoe factory and shop after an Inspector found that its vehicle movements would not create unacceptable highway danger. Inspector H Whitfield allowed the appeal on 3 November 2026, overturning Bedford Borough Council’s refusal of a Class E to sui generis change of use.
The appeal concerned the former PJ Shoes premises beside Stuart Road in Kempston, where F3 Motors stores and sells vehicles and uses part of the building to photograph cars for online listings. Applicant G Murtza challenged the refusal of application 25/00716/S73A. The site is reached through a single-width entrance on a mainly residential street with limited on-street parking.
The Kempston car sales decision matters because the Inspector did not ignore the narrow access or nearby neighbours. Instead, the decision compared the traffic and access implications of the actual business against the commercial activities that could lawfully operate there under Use Class E, before imposing detailed operating conditions.
Why the Kempston car sales appeal was allowed
The former building had been used as a shoe factory and factory shop. Both parties accepted that the last lawful use was within Class E, commercial, business and service. The proposal was materially different: vehicle sales and storage are sui generis activities, outside the broad Class E category, so the applicant sought planning permission rather than relying on a change within the same class.
Bedford’s principal concern was highway and pedestrian safety on Stuart Road. The road is predominantly residential, although there are other businesses, and has a 20mph limit. Houses generally depend on street parking. The Inspector saw limited vacant parking on a mid-morning site visit and cars close to the business entrance that restricted visibility.
The Kempston car sales appeal therefore did not proceed on the premise that the entrance was ideal. The key question was whether allowing this particular business would make matters materially worse than the site’s existing lawful commercial use. Our Use Class E guidance explains why the range of lawful alternatives can matter when assessing a change away from that class.
A narrow entrance was weighed against the lawful fallback
The access is too narrow for two vehicles to pass one another. The council feared cars waiting or reversing on the highway, obstructed sightlines and the movements of large vehicle transporters. There were also concerns about the effect of vehicles exiting onto the pavement and about local parking pressure.
The Inspector accepted that vehicles leaving the site would have constrained visibility, especially when other motorists parked nearby. However, these difficulties were already associated with the existing access. No physical changes to the entrance were proposed and comparable commercial users could also have operated through it.
The appeal plans provided for cars to wait and turn inside the premises. The business’s operational management plan included advance scheduling of deliveries and supervision of movements. Signage would give priority to vehicles entering the site, limiting the likelihood of a car having to wait on Stuart Road or reverse into traffic.
The Kempston car sales case is particularly useful for understanding the limits of a highway objection. An existing access can be imperfect without every new use being unacceptable. The planning issue is the likely change in harm, backed by evidence, not simply whether the access would meet modern standards if it were being built for the first time.
Traffic estimates challenged the council’s concerns
The applicant’s transport evidence forecast 29 two-way vehicle movements a day for the proposed use. It estimated three movements in the morning peak and two in the evening peak. The council did not challenge those figures, according to the Inspector’s decision.
For comparison, the submitted assessment suggested that the former shoe storage and retail operation could have generated 47 movements daily. The Inspector noted an important caveat: that comparison used data from larger retail units, so the figures might not be directly comparable with the former business. Nor was the lawful retail floorspace shown to be restricted.
The Inspector’s conclusion in the Kempston car sales appeal was consequently narrower than saying that 29 daily journeys were harmless everywhere. There was no substantial evidence that the new use would produce a materially greater volume of traffic than could reasonably be expected from the lawful Class E premises.
Councillors had alleged that the site was busier under the new operation. The Inspector described the evidence on intensification as anecdotal and unsubstantiated, finding “there would be no intensification of use of the access” on the material submitted. That finding was supported by the appointment-only sales model and the proposed management measures.
This reasoning also illustrates why parking and traffic evidence needs to match the circumstances of the site. The mere availability of a standard traffic estimate does not replace a careful account of lawful use, vehicle types, actual customer activity and the extent to which management controls can be enforced.
Complaints about parking and repairs were considered
Residents raised concerns about inconsiderate parking, cars blocking the road, damage to vehicles and vehicles on the highway without valid tax or MOT documentation. The Inspector distinguished these matters from the planning assessment, noting that road traffic enforcement is dealt with under other powers.
There was also no convincing basis for concluding that the site’s proposed customer, staff and stock parking would be inadequate. The plans showed designated spaces within the premises. Although on-street parking stress was evident, the evidence did not show that the new commercial use would add pressure over and above the lawful Class E baseline.
Concerns about noise were assessed against the business proposed, rather than an assumed motor workshop. The application did not include repairs or servicing. The Inspector considered that a sales and storage operation need not be more disruptive than lawful commercial uses already available, and imposed a condition limiting exactly what could take place.
The Kempston car sales ruling therefore does not grant a blanket permission for all automotive activities. Car repair, servicing and valeting are expressly excluded by the conditions. That distinction is important for anyone examining the planning consequences of changing use between trading formats that may look superficially similar.
Operating hours and safeguards define the permission
The grant requires the approved plans and operational management plan to be followed, with vehicle and cycle parking and turning areas marked out and available. A scheme for surfacing the access must be approved and implemented within the specified period. Further conditions control external lighting and the placement of any new entrance gates.
Vehicle sales and storage are limited to 9.30am to 6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 2pm on Sundays and public or bank holidays. The Inspector also limited the hours when external lighting may be switched on. These safeguards helped keep the business within the traffic and amenity assumptions used to assess the appeal.
The Kempston car sales decision is a practical reminder that a retrospective application can succeed on its planning merits, but success may come with tighter restrictions than the operator expected. It also shows why applicants should substantiate comparisons with the lawful fallback use rather than simply asserting that the new use is no more harmful.
Inspector H Whitfield allowed appeal 6012332 on 3 November 2026, granting permission for the change of use at the former PJ Shoes site under application 25/00716/S73A, subject to conditions. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments