Issue - meetings

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30