Garden nail salon at 11 Surtees Haugh, Stella, Gateshead

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a garden outbuilding used as a nail salon, with revised opening hours on five days each week.

“Retrospective planning permission is sought for the construction of an outbuilding in the rear garden and its use as a nail salon (Use Class E).”

“Under the original permission for the housing estate to which this property relates, Permitted Development rights were removed meaning planning permission is needed for the outbuilding (and its use as a nail salon).”

Officer report

The site and building

The site is a mid-terraced home with one front parking space, a rear garden and shared alleyway access beside a residential property.

“The application site relates to No.11 Surtees Haugh, located in Stella in Ryton. No.11 is a mid terraced property in residential use (C3).”

“The dwelling has one car parking space to the front. To the rear is a garden with pedestrian access to the rear garden via a shared alleyway to the side of the adjoining property, No.12 Surtees Haugh. The surrounding area is residential in nature.”

Officer report

Relevant planning history

Earlier permission for the housing estate removed permitted development rights, so permission was required for the outbuilding and its use.

“Reference: 713/95 Proposal: Proposed residential development at site of Stella South Power Station Decision: Granted. (Permitted Development Rights Removed).”

Officer report

Main concerns about neighbours

Customers using the shared alleyway could reduce a neighbour’s privacy, while activity near rear gardens could cause noise and disturbance.

“There is a shared alleyway adjacent to the adjoining property, No.12 Surtees Haugh. This shared alleyway provides access to the rear gardens of the application site and to No.12 Surtees Haugh. The access allows for bins to be stored to the rear and brought to the front of the premises for collection. It is proposed that the shared alley way would be how customers would access the nail salon. This gives rise to concerns.”

“Furthermore, the proposed use of the shed as nail salon sited against the rear boundary of the plot, adjacent to other rear gardens to the rear of the subject property is also a cause for concern. Objection comments have been received which stress concerns regarding noise and disturbance from clients before during and after each appointment.”

Officer report

Parking and highway safety

Transport officers found only one suitable parking space and considered the revised opening hours unacceptable because they overlapped with peak residential parking demand.

“Transport advise that, to prevent further parking issues, conditions should be secured to prevent more than one visitor (client) attending the premises at any time. The condition would prevent cross over in demand for parking space. Furthermore, a condition limiting operating times to interpeak hours 9:00-16:00 would also be required to ensure any generated parking demand can avoid the peak residential parking demand.”

“The business would be closed on a Thursday and on a Sunday. The revised opening hours were assessed by the Council’s Transport Planning Team and with the business proposed to operate post 4pm, the development would still overlap with peak residential parking demand. It is considered that this is unacceptable on transport and highway safety grounds.”

Officer report

What people said

There were 69 supporting representations and 66 objections, raising views about disturbance, smells, traffic, parking, privacy and the character of the area.

“Residential amenity concerns relating to additional noise with disturbance early mornings/late evenings • Concern over smells and odours • Inadequate car parking and increase of traffic • Loss of privacy • Out of character with Conservation Area • Out of character with streetscene • Overbearing and overdevelopment • Proposal will attract potential vandals • Contradicts restrictive covenant on the estate • Undermining Local Business • No record of business on companies…”

“Material planning concerns regarding noise, smell, disturbance, car parking, traffic, privacy, character and impact on residential amenity are addressed in the assessment section below. • The business not being listed on the Valuation Office Agency register or Companies House is not a material planning consideration. • In terms of health and safety regulations, those are controlled separately with different legislation outside the control of the Planning System.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker spoke in favour of the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused planning permission because of harm to residential amenity, privacy, parking, congestion and transport and highway safety.

“The development has an unacceptable impact on residential amenity to the rear of the site, due to the proximity of the development to residents gardens, with the coming and goings of customers, causing undue disturbance before, during and after appointments, as well as the harm to the privacy of the adjoining property (No.12 Surtees Haugh) with clients walking past a front, habitable ground floor window in order to access the salon, via the shared alleyway.”

“The development would coincide with peak parking demand in the surrounding area, resulting in a residual cumulative impact on the road network and levels of congestion causing harm to transport and highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CS13 and MSGP15 of the Local Plan and the…”

Minutes