Aesthetics business at 4 Alford Lane, Stockton-on-Tees

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to use a detached garage for an appointment-only aesthetics business offering various treatments.

“24/2109/RET 4 Alford Lane, Stockton on Tees, TS19 0QP Retrospective application for the change of use of the exiting detached garage to an aesthetics business (sui generis).”

“Planning permission is sought on a retrospective basis for the change of use of the detached outbuilding to an aesthetics business. According to the supporting statement, services include dermal fillers, anti-wrinkle treatments, skin facials, vitamin injections, fat dissolving, skin analysis/consultations, skin tag removal and PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma) treatments. The business operates Monday – Friday 9am – 2:30pm and Saturdays 10am – 4pm, by appointment only.”

Officer report

The site

The former garage is a detached outbuilding in the rear garden of a dwelling on a quiet residential cul-de-sac, beside other homes and gardens.

“The application site relates to 4 Alford Lane; a detached residential dwelling located in the Whitehouse Farm estate in Stockton on Tees. The property lies close to the entrance of Alford Lane, a quiet, residential cul-de-sac, comprising mainly of bungalows, with the exception of the application property and its neighbour to the south, no 2 Alford Lane, which are two storey dwellings.”

“4 Alford Lane is flanked by residential dwellings to either side, no 2 to the south and no 6 to the north with the rear garden abutting the gardens of no’s 2 and 3 Chatsworth Court to the east. No 67 Newstead Avenue also abuts the rear garden to the northeast.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the use was considered acceptable in principle, with no significant policy conflict or technical reason for refusal.

“In this instance, whilst an aesthetics business is typically Use Class E in recognition that it is a town centre use, as it’s within a domestic setting, it is therefore deemed sui generis. The Council accepts that the business had been lawfully operating from the premises previously and it is only due to the increase in activity whereby planning permission is now required.”

“Accordingly, there is no direct conflict with the policies of the Local Plan or the NPPF and the principle of development is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location.”

Officer report

Effects on neighbours and roads

Officers considered that limits on hours, clients, staffing and waste, together with available parking, would prevent significant harm to neighbours or highway safety.

“In terms of waste disposal, the business does not generate high levels of waste, however it is separated from domestic waste by means of a grey bin and sharps bin, which is securely stored inside of the clinic. The applicant has confirmed that general waste and anything with blood contamination is disposed of within the large grey bin and sharps are disposed of directly into a sharps bin.”

“The primary objection from neighbouring properties relates to highway safety related matters. Concerns have been cited around irresponsible parking and manoeuvrability from some clients causing general obstruction and possible obstruction for emergency services. Concerns around clients turning up early, leading to further parking demand and waiting outside for their respective appointments.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection, Environmental Health raised no objection subject to controls, and residents submitted 31 objections and 19 support letters.

“Neighbours were notified and 31no. letters of objection were received which includes 11no proforma letters and 13no proforma letters which contain additional comments. Comments have been summarised below.”

“In support of the application, 19no. individual letters have been received. Letters are from the applicants’ clients, family and friends; however, it is acknowledged that none of the letters of support are from the neighbouring properties of Alford Lane. Comments in the support letters advise that there have been no issues with respect to parking at the property and concerns have been raised with respect to the use of CCTV cameras pointing in the direction of the…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors and the applicants addressed the committee, followed by officers responding to the issues raised.

What members discussed

Members discussed the retrospective application, traffic and parking, business expansion, enforcement, alternative premises and whether conditions were sufficient.

“- We have acknowledged that the business has expanded. The proposal was assessed, and it was felt that it was operating on an ancillary basis and an enforcement investigation was carried out and this is why the retrospective application is before members.”

“- The decision on whether to look at alternative premises is a matter for the client.”

Minutes

The vote

The application was approved following a committee vote.

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

Minutes

The decision and conditions

Permission was granted with conditions limiting operating times, customers, use, staffing and waste disposal.

“RESOLVED that planning application 24/2109/RET be approved subject to the following conditions and informatives;”

“Waste Disposal 4. All commercial waste resulting from the hereby approved use shall be kept secure within the aesthetics clinic and shall remain separate from general household waste. The commercial waste shall be suitably disposed of by an accredited waste disposal management company.”

Minutes