Hair salon in garage at 6 Little Brind Road, Upper Newbold, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a garage into a hair salon as part of a mixed residential and commercial use, with associated alterations.

“The application proposes the change of use of the residential dwelling to mixed use dwelling /commercial in relation to use of garage as hair salon and associated alterations.”

“The application form indicates that the proposed business will operate Tuesday, Thursday and Friday between the hours of 9am – 6pm and between the hours of 8.30am – 4pm on Saturdays. The business will be closed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Sundays. The application form indicates one person will employed at the salon on a part time basis.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a detached two-storey dwelling in a residential area, with a garage and two parking spaces in front.

“The property subject of the application is a detached two storey dwelling located on the east side of the public highway known as Little Brind Road, off Holme Park Avenue. The property is located in an exclusively residential area with residential properties surrounding the site.”

“The property currently has a garage with internal measurements of 5.2 metres (L) x 2.8 metres (W) and no.2 off street parking spaces located in front of the property.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no planning history for the application site.

“There is no planning history for this application site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm neighbouring living conditions through increased noise, disturbance and loss of privacy.

“CONCLUSION 10.1 Overall, the proposal is not considered to be acceptable in accordance with the above mentioned policies of the Local Plan. It is considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts on the residential amenity and as a result be in conflict with the provisions of Local Plan policy CLP14 and CLP20, as well as the wider NPPF which states that planning decisions should create a high standard of amenity for existing and future users (paragraph…”

“The proposed business use of the integral garage at the application site is considered to result in an over intensive and harmful use of the site. The increased comings and goings to the property which would arise as a result of the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, through increased noise and disturbance and a loss of privacy.”

Officer report

What people said

Objections concerned noise, amenity, traffic, parking, privacy, security, visual impact and future expansion, while supporters cited accessibility and local benefits.

“At the time of writing, this application has received 18 representations; 12 objections and 6 in support of the proposal. The objections are summarised as follows: • Noise impact • Impact on residential Amenity • Traffic / Highways impacts • Visual impact • Change to character of the area • Potential for future expansion of business • Impact on residential privacy • Issues regarding parking and manoeuvrability for neighbouring residents • Privacy and safety concerns for…”

“Officer response: Covenants are not matters that Planning Legislation has control over; these form a civil matter. In terms of future expansion of the business, this is likely to require further permission which would be assessed on its own merits.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A councillor spoke as an objector and the applicant addressed the committee.

Committee discussion

Members discussed concerns about working hours and traffic, the applicant’s family responsibilities and home working, and a proposed fence.

“The Committee considered the report and recommendations within it and Councillors noted the concerns around hours of work and traffic that were raised. Councillors also noted the reasons for the application in helping to care for a family member whilst working at home as well as the applicant agreeing to install a fence if the application is approved.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to uphold the officer recommendation was moved, seconded and agreed.

“It was moved by Councillor Caulfield and seconded by Councillor Brittain that the officer recommendation be upheld.”

“That the officer recommendation be upheld, and the application be REFUSED subject to the conditions outlined in the Officer’s report.”

Minutes