Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and therefore left the room and took no part in either the discussion or vote.

Applicant: Dr Robert Koefman

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of the site from residential (Use Class C3) to a mixed use of residential and a beauty salon (Use Class Sui Generis) (Retrospective).

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 201 to 216.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

John Walsh, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. John stated that he had been subject to a campaign of harassment from the business owner and neighbours. John added that his wife had been subject to several verbal onslaughts on her own doorstep. John stated that there were only three formal parking bays at number 25, as the modified garage was too small to accommodate any vehicle. John added that he had submitted photographs, land registry maps, title deeds, and a solicitor’s letter confirming that that he had driveway ownership and intended use. John added that after considering the vehicles owned by number 25, there were no formal bays left for use by either the intended clients or business owner. John stated that prior to the business operating, the closest public viewpoint into his property was 25m away at the end of the driveway, and the closest pedestrian walkway route was closer to 40m away. John was of the opinion that there was therefore a significant reduction in privacy, as the nearest window of his property to the business entrance was only 3m distance, and his family’s privacy was particularly important to them during the evening and weekends when the children were at home and adults were not working. John was of the opinion that the business operator had not been adhering to any planning rules, whilst operating outside of the proposed hours and client volume contained within the planning application, whilst the published opening hours on social media did not align with those on the application. John asked the Committee to consider how the operating conditions would be enforced by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), should this application be approved. John stated that whilst his preference was for the business to relocate somewhere more suitable, he hoped that the Committee could at least consider additional conditions, including restricting opening hours to 9-5 on weekdays and excluding all weekends and bank holidays, use of an alternative business entrance point such as the property front door or rear gate, and finally asked that the driveway forecourt was not used by the business operator or client parking during the agreed business hours.

Matthew Miller, agent, spoke in support of the application. Matthew stated that this was a retrospective application as the applicant had not realised that permission was required, and had applied for permission as soon as they were advised to do so. Matthew stated that the business operated on an appointment only basis with a maximum of four clients per day within strictly enforced hours of operation. Matthew added that this application would meet WBC’s parking standards, and commented that the neighbouring property at number 23 did not have sole right of access. Matthew commented that the planning authority had to take into account any fall-back position that could be adopted, which in this case would be that a similar business could be lawfully operated without the need for planning permission by the owners of number 25 rather than the daughter who did not reside at the address. Matthew concluded by stating that the application confirmed with both local and national planning policy as a whole, as was a fully sustainable development which also brought about a degree of economic benefit. Matthew asked that the Committee approve this application.

Imogen Shepherd DuBey, Ward Member, commented on the application. Imogen stated that Councillor Rachel Bishop-Firth had listed this application to the Committee due to concerns relating to potential noise and disturbances to residents in the area including neighbouring properties. Imogen stated that she was not against this type of business, however ground rules needed to be in place to ensure that businesses did not cause any problems for neighbours or local residents. Imogen asked the Committee to listen to both the applicant and local residents, and agree a framework whereby all parties could understand and live with.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the safety of children in relation to additional vehicle movements had been considered, queried officers view on the entrance for the business coming off of the public footpath along Bob’s Copse, queried what test was applied to determine that the business use was incidental to the residential use of the main dwelling, and queried whether a condition to exclude all weekend and bank holiday trading was reasonable. Senjuti Manna, case officer, stated that officers had visited the site and felt that the front garden was small and not really large enough for children to play in. Senjuti added that use of the footpath for access would change the nature of the application. Relating to ancillary use, Senjuti stated that planning permission would not be required if the business operator lived at the address, and officers felt that the overall use of the business was ancillary to the residential nature of the dwelling. Senjuti stated that condition 3 stated that the business could not operate on Sundays or bank holidays, and permission to operate between 10AM and 4PM on a Saturday was considered reasonable.

Stephen Conway stated that operation of the business on Saturdays could have an effect on residential amenity, however not allowing it could be of detriment to the business. Stephen queried whether it was reasonable to allow use of the business between the prescribed hours of 10AM and 4PM on Saturdays. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that only four appointments were allowed on a Saturday, with a thirty minute gap between appointments, and as such officers had deemed this acceptable.

Stephen Conway commented that residents could contact the WBC enforcement team if they had any concerns relating to breach of conditions in the future.

RESOLVED That application number 211754 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 202 to 203.