Appeal 6004061

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal submission, the appellant suggests that the proposed introduction of a customer entrance doorway into the side elevation could be omitted from the scheme. However, I am mindful that it is not the purpose of the appeal process to evolve a scheme and it is therefore important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the plans as submitted to the Council for their determination.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and privacy.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling on a quiet, modern residential estate, with neighbouring properties being similar in design and scale. The frontage accommodates parking for two vehicles with a narrow path providing access along the side elevation to the rear garden. There is no boundary treatment to the front and side of the property adjoining [address] (No 8). The neighbouring house at No 8 has a large ground floor front window alongside the side access paths for both houses and a doorway within the side elevation.

The proposal seeks permission to convert the existing integral garage to a hair salon. Associated alterations are also proposed to replace the existing garage door with two narrow windows on the front elevation, and the insertion of a new doorway to the side elevation to provide direct customer access. The salon would operate on an appointment only basis, with a single hairdresser and customer present at any time, between 9am and 8pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays and between 8:30am and 4pm on Saturdays.

The proposal would see activity associated with the proposed use for a considerable proportion of the week, including early evenings and weekends, with numerous unrelated visitors attending the property. Although modest in scale and allowing the appellant the flexibility of working from home, the proposal would result in a significant increase in activity from customers coming and going in close proximity to the large ground floor window of No 8, resulting in undue harm to the living conditions of the occupiers. This would be very different to what would reasonably be expected to occur within a residential area and would ultimately result in noise and disturbance harmful to neighbouring residents, where no such effects currently exist.

The proposed use would also cause harm to the privacy of residents at No [address] proximity of their front habitable room window and lack of any intervening boundary treatment. Customers would have close range views to the ground floor window of No 8 when accessing the hair salon. While this window is street facing, the dwelling is set back from the road providing a degree of separation from passing activity.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer raised no objections to the principle of the proposal, but advised that operating hours, different to those sought by the appellant, should be restricted by condition. The appellant indicates that such a condition would be acceptable, if necessary, and has also suggested conditions limiting the use of the garage to that proposed and to a maximum of one hairdresser and one customer at any one time. However, I am not satisfied that these measures would address or mitigate the harm identified above.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and privacy. It would therefore be contrary to Policies CLP14 and CLP20 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan (July 2020) which, amongst other things, require new development to safeguard amenity and enrich the quality of existing places, respecting the character of the surrounding area.

No concerns have been raised with regarding town centre impacts or highway safety. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not amount to a benefit, rather they are expectations of local and national planning policies.

My attention has been drawn to several appeal decisions whereby proposals for hair salon uses within residential properties have been allowed, subject to conditions (APP/A1720/W/21/3277592, APP/B1550/W/25/3364676, APP/P4415/W/24/3357339 and APP/C2741/W/22/3306060). However, from the evidence before me, these examples are not situated close to the appeal site, relate to the conversion of outbuildings within rear gardens or are sited alongside other garages or boundary treatments. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the circumstances are directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me, particularly in terms of their relationship with neighbouring properties. I have, in any case, necessarily assessed the scheme on its planning merits.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan considered as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.