Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report on planning application 24/2109/RET - 4 Alford Lane, Stockton-on-Tees, TS19 0QP - Retrospective application for the change of use of existing detached garage to aesthetics business.

 

Planning permission was 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.

 

The application had generated a total of 31no letters of objection and 19no letters of support following neighbour consultations. No objections had been raised by statutory consultees.

 

The application site related to a detached outbuilding, a former garage, within the rear garden of 4 Alford Lane, which was within a residential estate of Stockton. The application had been assessed in full, and it was considered that the development did not result in any significant conflict with the policies of the Local Plan or relevant chapters of the NPPF and there were no technical reasons why the proposed scheme was deemed to be unacceptable in planning terms in which to justify refusal of the application.

 

In accordance with the Councils scheme of delegation, the application would be determined by Planning Committee due to the number of objections received to the proposed development.

 

Consultees had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the report.

 

With regard to consultation neighbours had been notified and 31no. letters of objection were received which included 11no proforma letters and 13no proforma letters which contained additional comments. The comments that had been received were summarised within the report.

 

With regard to planning policy where an adopted or approved development plan contained relevant policies, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required that an application for planning permissions should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan(s) for the area, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  In this case the relevant Development Plan was the Stockton on Tees Borough Council Local Plan 2019.

 

Section 143 of the Localism Act came into force on the 15 January 2012 and required the Local Planning Authority to take local finance considerations into account, this section s70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended required in dealing with such an application the authority should have regard to a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application and c) any other material considerations.

 

The planning policies that were to be considered to be relevant to the consideration of the application were detailed within the report.

 

In view of the assessment above, it was considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant conflict with the policies contained within the Stockon on Tees Local Plan or the relevant chapters of the NPPF and there were no technical reasons why the proposed scheme would be deemed unacceptable.

 

In planning terms, the proposed development was considered acceptable in all other regards and was therefore recommended for approval subject to those planning conditions set out in the report.

 

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

 

- The cited working hours on the website are 9am-6:30pm but the application is Monday to Friday 9am to 2:30pm and Saturday 10am to 4pm. This has not been the case as some customers arrive at 7pm.

 

- Some clients turn up early which leads to increased parking demand and clients waiting around outside for their appointment.

 

- Parking from some clients has caused problems, reducing space for pedestrian access and causing obstructions.

 

- Many 3-point turns take place outside the business.

 

- There are 3 businesses running from this business, this is a residential street with many elderly living on it.

 

- The application form has not been completed and surprised that it has been accepted.

 

- The aesthetics business is becoming more popular, and concerns are raised regarding future parking problems.

 

- None of the supporters are from the Stockton area but most of the objectors are from Alford Lane.

 

- There is often general waste overflowing from the applicants’ bin.

 

- Alford Lane is a quiet residential area of bungalows, with the majority being for older people. The use of one of the properties as a popular business does not align with the street and wider estate.

 

 - There are plenty of shops and retail units more suitable for this business to operate within which wouldn’t affect our residential amenity.

 

- Planning permission should have been granted in advance of the business being set up.

 

- Neighbours have endured continuous building works on site and excess traffic and parking for this facility.

 

- The business generates issues of noise.

 

- The property is located close to Whitehouse Farm Primary School which adds to the chaos of the estate roads.

 

- What provisions are in place for medical disposal, such as syringes.

 

- Concerns are raised that support comments have been received from non-residents of the estate

.

- Concerns are raised that the aesthetics clinic has devalued our property.

 

- Drainage and sewerage should be considered.

 

The applicants attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

 

- A prescribing pharmacist with over 20 years of health care experience.

 

- The business has been created on an appointment basis only. The hours are 9am to 230pm Monday to Friday and Saturday 10am to 4pm. These short days allow balance of home and work life as a mother.

 

- It is a flexible working set up and is based on how many booking that are made.

 

- The website does say 9am to 6pm but after 230pm I will just take phone calls and look at emails but no bookings are made before 9am or after 230pm.

 

- The waste from the clinic is collected by a company and collect on an 8 to 12 week basis and this covers all sharps and contaminated waste. Also recycling is taken to Haverton Hill.

 

- The drive has space for up to 6 vehicles and all clients are directed to park on the driveway. We also have a large family and close friends who visit so not all the people that come to the house are clients.

 

- My family has been bullied and harassed to the extent that the police have been contacted on a number of occasions. Cameras have been illegally recording my family over 2 years and I have a young family.

- I create a safe space for my clients and I’m a medical professional and I do everything by the book.

 

- My husband does run businesses, but they do not require people to come to the home.

 

- A time gap is put in between clients so that there is no overlap.

 

- An application is with the Council for a drop kerb.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

 

- With regard to the operating hours we are trying to achieve a balance of acceptable vehicle levels. Paragraph 47 of the report sets out the reasoning for the opening hours.

 

- The hours are similar to other operations in the Borough for hairdressers and nail salons.

 

- The level of activity is not to dissimilar to that we would see at a typical residential property.

 

- Regarding waste there is a condition that would need to be complied with.

 

- It does not appear that any other business operate from this site.

 

- CIL doesn’t apply to this development.

 

- There is adequate parking for the proposal. A drop crossing is required but as the applicant has outlined, they have applied for one and this be installed in due course.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows:

 

- It should be noted that this is a retrospective application because a complaint was received following delegated decisions made in relation to the planning approval.

 

- There are glaring inaccuracies within the report.

 

- Whitehouse Farm is gridlocked at many times during the day. These issues matter to residents.

 

- People are parking on the footpath.

 

- The business has expanded.

 

- Why haven’t we enforced any of the restrictions and will we do so in the future.

 

- Has this business outgrown the premise and a commercial premise should be sought.

 

- The conditions should alleviate residents’ concerns.

 

- Can condition 4 be tightened up a bit to include that all the waste from the business be collected from an appropriate business waste collector.

 

- The website should be made clearer regarding opening hours and arrival time.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

 

- We can only consider the matters around this application and not to try and resolve the issues that already exist around Whitehouse Farm.

 

- There is enough parking for 5 vehicles.

 

- 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.

 

- Should the application be approved and the applicant breaches any of the conditions action will be taken.

 

- The applicant can consider if the business should be located elsewhere.

 

- The hours and six clients per day are consistent with other similar homeworking operations across the Borough.

 

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

 

A vote took place and the application was approved.

 

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

 

Approved Plans

1.         The development hereby approved shall be in accordance with the following approved plan(s);

 

Plan Reference Number     Date Received

SBC 0001 Site Location Plan

            03 January 2025

 

2.         Opening Hours / Number of Customers

Notwithstanding the submitted information, the outbuilding to the rear of the property is permitted to operate for the use as a aesthetics business Monday- Friday between the hours of 09:00 - 17:00.  No working shall take place on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. The number of appointments or clients visiting the site shall be restricted to no more than six appointments per day, with only one client at anyone time during the permitted hours of operation only.

 

Limitation of Use

3.         The change of use hereby approved shall be used solely as an aesthetics business (use class sui generis) and for use by the applicant only, with no other commercial use permitted or additional staff members permitted. The outbuilding shall be returned to a use incidental to the main dwelling house when the permitted use ceases or the property is sold.

 

 

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.

 

INFORMATIVE OF REASON FOR PLANNING APPROVAL

 

Working Practices

The Local Planning Authority found the submitted details satisfactory subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and has worked in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with the planning application.