WARNING: If you are seeing this page the template cannot be found, the system will continue to function in text mode.


History



Navigation


Agenda item

9 Wesley Salmon Close (HS/FA/19/00459)

Minutes:

Proposal

Change of use from C3 (dwelling house) to a mixed use comprising C3 (dwelling house) and A1 (use of utility room for hairdressing).

Application No.

HS/FA/19/00459

Conservation Area

No

Listed Building

No

Public Consultation

Yes – 1 letter of objection, 4 letters of support, 1 petition of support, 1 neutral comment received – Petition of support received contrary to officer’s recommendation

 

Councillor Davies was not present for the officer’s report so was not able to take part or vote on this item and sat in the public gallery during consideration of this item.

 

The Planning Services Manager presented the item which was recommended for refusal, she commented that the number of support letters has increased from 4 to 5 and an additional neutral comment has been received since the publication of the agenda.

 

Councillors were shown plans and photographs of the application site.  The Planning Services Manager set out the planning history for the site and explained that a complaint was received in 2018, following which a planning application was submitted.  The proposed use introduces business activity, noise disturbance and was not an acceptable use as it was considered to be a harmful change to the character of the area and contrary to guidance in the NPPF.

 

Christine Crouch was present and spoke on behalf of the Petitioner in support of the application. She commented that she has lived in Wesley Salmon Close for 12 years and was aware of the planning application. Although there is congestion in the immediate area, Wesley Salmon Close is only congested in the evenings, which is outside of the proposed business hours of the application. Turning and manoeuvring is difficult due to the layout of the cul-de-sac which is not signposted as such. A lot of the traffic is people trying to drive through not knowing that it is a cul-de-sac. Around 30 residents have supported this application and believe that parking would not be a problem and the salon has not impacted parking for residents so far. She said that the visitors were considerate of the neighbours and that the applicant’s customers park on the properties driveway and don’t disrupt the area. She commented that she wasn’t even aware that there was a business running until this application.

 

Councillors asked questions of the petitioner’s nominated speaker.

 

.

Graham Fifield, the applicant’s agent, was present and spoke in favour of the application. He commented that there has been lots of support from local residents for the application and similar applications have been granted before. The business has been running for 17 months and the residents who most of which didn’t realise it was there until a sign went up will have the best knowledge of the impact on the area that the business has. The owner was not aware that she would require planning permission for this. The use that was previously applied for was for a much more in depth salon, in the new application the extent of the dwelling is reduces as is the opening times. No staff are employed.  When the salon is not in use it will be used as a utility room. The traffic harm to residents from the officer report is not apparent, it is hard to manoeuvre in the road but there is no evidence that this is due to the presence of the salon. A nearby parking survey showed no impact on traffic. Other concerns from the officer’s report are expansion of the business or inclusion of additional A1 uses, this is not true. A personal condition may be appropriate. He stated that by refusing the application the applicant would be deprived of her livelihood.

 

Councillors asked questions of the applicant

 

 

Councillors asked questions of the Planning Services Manager

 

The Planning Services Manager commented that the parking survey mentioned by the applicant in the area was of limited scope so useful conclusions could not be drawn from this. There are key differences between other application that have been granted and this one. Through roads can show less impact from increased activity.

 

 

Councillors discussed the use of paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the officer’s report. The Planning Services Manager commented that paragraph 127 is that the application creates a safe place with high standards for residents. The development was discovered because of a complaint made to the council.

 

Councillors discussed the potential of adding a personal condition to limit growth of the business. The Planning Services Manager commented that personal conditions are very rarely used and the Government’s advice is to avoid their use. The number of customers could be restricted but the current number of customers is not known.

 

The Planning Services Manager suggested that from councillor’s discussions two conditions could be added:

 

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan

Block Plan

Floor Plan and Elevations Drawing no PLAN GRF1

 

2. The use of the hairdressing salon hereby granted shall operate only within the following times:-

 

14:30 to 17:30 on Mondays

10:00 to 12:00 and 14:00 to 16:00 on Wednesday and Friday

11:00 to 13:00 on Thursdays

9:30 to 12:30 on Saturdays

Not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

Councillor Beaver proposed a motion seconded by Councillor Scott that planning permission be approved with the two conditions agreed as set out in the below resolution.

 

RESOLVED – (7 for, 2 abstentions.) that Full Planning Permission be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan

Block Plan

Floor Plan and Elevations Drawing no PLAN GRF1

 

2. The use of hairdressing salon hereby granted shall operate only within the following times:-

14:30 to 17:30 on Mondays

10:00 to 12:00 and 14:00 to 16:00 on Wednesday and Friday

11:00 to 13:00 on Thursdays

9:30 to 12:30 on Saturdays

Not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

Reasons:

 

1.     For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2.     To safeguard the amenity of adjoining and future residents.

 

Supporting documents:

 


© modern.gov