Appeal 6004821

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission Ref 25/01495/F for the change of use of domestic garden building to [name], granted 12 January 2026, is varied by deleting condition 2 and substituting it for the following condition:

The one-way ‘in/out’ access and on-site parking areas provided on site shall be retained in accordance with drawing no. 1759-02a for the lifetime of the development.

The appellant’s request was three-fold. Firstly, to amend condition 2 to refer to a revised Access and [name] Plan1 showing a proposed re-alignment of the car parking spaces for use of the dwelling’s occupants and provision of an 1 [name] 1759-02a. additional two car parking spaces in front for the use of visitors to the Pilates studio. Secondly, to amend condition 5 to allow Pilates classes to take place between the following times: Mondays 07.00 to 10.00 and 17.00 to 20.00, Tuesdays 09.00 to 12.00, Thursdays 06.00 to 10.00 and 17.00 to 20.00, and Sundays and Bank / Public Holidays 09.00 to 12.00. This would have the effect of reducing the overall number of operational hours of the Pilates studio across a week, but would introduce earlier morning hours on Mondays, Thursdays and Sundays, and later evening hours on Mondays and Thursdays. Thirdly, to amend condition 5 to allow the Pilates facility to be run by an instructor other than [name] during absences.

Although this appeal is technically allowed, the requested amendments to condition 5 relating to the hours of operation and the person permitted to operate the Pilates studio have not been accepted.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed amendments on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings regarding noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposed vehicle parking arrangements on highway safety.

Linnymead is a residential property with planning permission for use of two rear outbuildings as a [name] and a servery providing snacks and drinks, which are in operation. It is set within a predominantly peaceful suburban residential neighbourhood with dwellings either side: Oakdean is a two-storey detached property separated from Linnymead by a short fence and vegetation boundary; and [address] is a bungalow set back from Linneymead and separated from it by the garage on the appeal site. Both driveway openings at either end of the plot’s frontage are in use, which should operate as a one-way system for visitors. The driveway is made of loose gravel.

Very little commentary has been provided to justify the proposed alteration to the operating hours of the facility. Whilst the overall number of hours across a week would be reduced, the proposed shift to earlier morning hours across three days, as early as 06.00, is of particular concern. The later evening classes are also a concern but to a lesser extent. It is not unreasonable to consider early morning hours as part of the night and accordingly residents expect peaceful conditions within this predominantly residential setting.

It is acknowledged that the Pilates studio and servery are well-built and any minimal noise created during classes is likely to be inaudible externally. However, a combination of noise from vehicles moving over the gravel driveway, car engines and the coming and going of customers, including the opening and closing of car doors and conversation, have the potential to cause disturbance to neighbours, particularly those residing close by at Oakdean and [address]. These concerns are especially important in the context of the proposed earlier morning hours when background noise levels are likely to be low.

The Noise Assessment2 (NA), which was prepared and submitted in support of the original planning application, was quantitatively inconclusive regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours from the comings and goings of customers. This was primarily due to the inability to collect typical background noise levels at the time due to nearby temporary construction activity. Furthermore, the NA makes no assessment of very early morning or later evening classes, which this appeal seeks. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed amendments to the operational hours of the facility would be acceptable.

Furthermore, allowing the facility to be run by someone other than [name], whilst she resides at [address] and going from the site, which could have the potential to cause a greater level of noise and disturbance. It is also unclear how often this would occur and no suggested wording for a revised condition has been provided. The appellant has not put forward a convincing case that such an amendment would be acceptable.

Although additional car parking spaces are sought, restrictions relating to the number of visitors and providing gaps between classes would still be in place. An increase in car parking spaces does not therefore equate to an increase in activity. It is acknowledged that the additional spaces would be closer to the boundary with Oakdean. However, they would not be a significant distance from existing car parking spaces and the vehicular access point, and therefore the level of noise from comings and goings experienced from Oakdean is unlikely to be significantly different to existing circumstances.

For these reasons, the proposed amendments to the operational hours of the facility and who the facility can be operated by would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings regarding noise and disturbance. Thus, it would be contrary to Policy LP21 of the [site address] and West Norfolk Local Plan (2021-2040) (LP), which, amongst other things, requires proposals to be assessed against their impact on neighbouring uses and their occupants regarding noise.

The proposed amendments to the car parking arrangements would comply with LP Policy LP21 for the reasons given above.

As previously discussed, the addition of two on-site car parking spaces would not result in an increase in the number of vehicles accessing the site at any one time due to restrictions that would remain in place relating to visitor numbers and to the scheduling of classes. Furthermore, the quantum of spaces allocated for use of the occupants of Linnymead would remain unchanged.

Whilst the driveway is not substantial in size, the revised Access and Parking Arrangement Plan demonstrates that access and egress would remain unchanged and that the new parking spaces could be accessed satisfactorily. The siting of the new spaces in front of those allocated for use of the occupants of Linnymead could be inconvenient but this is a matter that would be managed by [name] as both an occupant of Linnymead and operator of the facility. This matter would not in itself give rise to issues of highway safety. 2 Prepared by dB Consultation Limited in November 2025.

For the above reasons, the proposed amendments to the car parking arrangement would not compromise highway safety. Thus, it would comply with [name] LP13 and LP14, which, amongst other things set minimum car parking requirements and require the provision of safe and convenient access.

It is noted that the Pilates studio and servery benefit the community from a health and wellbeing perspective and earlier operational hours would be advantageous for working people for example. The proposal would also provide some employment for an additional instructor at times when [name] is unavailable. However, these benefits are limited given the small scale of the proposal and do not outweigh the harm identified.

The appellant states that the facility has been operating over several months, including at early morning hours, without complaint. However, a lack of objection does not equate to a lack of harm.

Interested parties have raised concern regarding the facility operating outside of the restrictive conditions currently in place. Nonetheless, any alleged breach in planning control is not a matter for this appeal.

Thus, the appeal is allowed, deleting condition 2 and replacing it with a condition referring to the revised plan, but maintaining condition 5.