Firearms sales from home at 9 Portchester Close, Ingleby Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees

What was proposed

The application sought to use part of a home as a secure firearms sales area while keeping the rest of the property residential.

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use of part of No.9 Portchester Close to be used for the sale of firearms and ammunition. The change of use would allow for a designated reception room to be used as a secured sales area. The rest of the property would remain as a residential dwelling.”

“The property benefits from secure storage for firearms and ammunition, and the exterior of the host property is covered by security cameras and has a 24 hour a day monitored alarm system. There are no external alterations proposed to the property, and the business would not have any external signage or indication of the type of business which would operate from the premises.”

Officer report

Earlier local examples

Searches found no previous Borough applications for home-based firearms or ammunition sales, while earlier gun workshops involved much less activity.

“The search identified that there had been no planning applications made to accommodate the sale of firearms or ammunition operating from their home address within the Borough. Applications had been made and accepted in relation to workshops for the manufacture and/or repair of guns on the periphery of the conurbation in the 1990’s.”

“In some cases, pre-application advice had been provided in relation to gun repairs, servicing and sales. In all these instances planning permission was deemed to not be required, as sales were either not taking place at the home address or it was indicated as being limited to a maximum of two visits per week. With the overall level of activity being significantly less than proposed in this application.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal was considered unsafe in perception, harmful to residential character and contrary to relevant planning policies.

“Reason One: Character In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed change of use would introduce a commercial use which is considered to be fundamentally at odds with the established residential character of the area due to the heightened fear of crime associated with the development.”

“Reason Two: Impact on the amenity of surrounding residents In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development is considered to introduce a use which would erode the perception of safety and is therefore detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding residents.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways and Environmental Health raised no objections, while Cleveland Police recommended rejection because the business was inappropriate for a housing estate and could attract criminality.

“Environmental Health Unit - I have checked the documentation provided, have found no grounds for objection in principle to the development and do not think that conditions need to be imposed from an Environmental Health perspective.”

“I recommend the Council reject the change of use application, because it's proposed that the business will operate from a residential property on a housing estate, which I consider inappropriate, for the type of business being considered. There is a road traffic safety element to consider too, with people unfamiliar with the location, creating additional traffic.”

Officer report

What residents said

There were 52 objections about safety, crime, traffic, parking, noise, privacy and the location, alongside 29 supporting letters citing security, regulation and parking.

“Impact on public safety • Increase in crime and anti-social behaviour in the area • Increase in noise disturbance as a result of the proposed use • Increase in on street parking pressures in the area • Detrimental impact on highway safety • Impact on privacy, safety and quality of life. • Inappropriate location for commercial use…”

“- Will not raise any safety issues - There are no parking problems in the street - Property benefits from adequate off street parking to serve the business operations - Precedent has been set by a similar business being run from a residential property elsewhere in the locality - The business will operate safely and by appointment only - Business will comply with strict regulatory framework - Only licensed holders will be able to use the business - Business will operate using…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors spoke about police information, supporting statements, parking, traffic, safety, advertising and the suitability of firearms sales in a residential area.

Members’ discussion

Members asked where firearm sales and transactions would occur, and officers said orders, licence checks and collections would take place at the property.

“- There was confusion over where the business sale and transaction would take place of the firearms.”

“- Officers understood that the transaction and processing of the business sale including the witnessing of the relevant licences of the purchaser would take place at the application site Portchester Place. The order would be placed and delivered to Portchester Place and then the customer would collect the firearm from there.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted to refuse the application.

“A vote took place and the application was refused.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the commercial firearms use and required security measures were considered incompatible with residential character and harmful to residents’ perceived safety.

“1.Character In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed change of use would introduce a commercial use which is considered to be fundamentally at odds with the established residential character of the area due to the heightened fear of crime associated with the development.”

“Impact on the amenity of surrounding residents In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development is considered to introduce a use which would erode the perception of safety and is therefore detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding residents.”

Minutes