Appeal 6005645

The appeal is allowed and permission is granted for the erection of an outbuilding for use as a nail and beauty salon at [site address] , Snettisham, [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02038/F, dated 8 December 2025, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

The main issue is whether the proposal would result in unacceptable highway safety risks as result of the site access and/or on-street car parking.

The proposal is for the erection of an outbuilding for use as a nail and beauty salon in the rear garden of No 113, an end terrace property on [address]. There is no dispute that the outbuilding, already erected, is acceptable in terms of its size, location and design.

A narrow driveway to one side of No 113 leads to a gravel area sufficient to allow turning and to accommodate up to six parked cars. This area would be adequate to serve the needs of both the dwelling and the business as the appellant has confirmed that there would only be one client at a time and no overlapping appointments. These constraints could be secured by condition.

However, the Council consider that the access drive is inadequate to serve additional traffic due to poor visibility when emerging onto [address]. Whilst visibility to the east is acceptable, due to the siting of No 115 immediately to the west, which extends hard up to the carriageway, there is no visibility of vehicles approaching from the west until the car projects well into the road. Drivers from that direction also have no prior warning that there is an access driveway and may be vehicles emerging. [address] is lightly trafficked with low traffic speeds but the lack of visibility leads to a significant highway safety risk that should not be increased by additional vehicle movements, even a small number, as a result of the beauty salon business. The parking area should not therefore be used by clients of the business. This could be secured by condition.

The issue is then whether clients can acceptably park on-street. The section of [address] immediately outside No 113 is effectively reduced to single lane working due to parking on each side, but that section is short and visible from either end, with two-way working beyond The OId Coal Yard to the east and No 76 to the west. During the site visits, which were undertaken both during the daytime and the early evening, there were a few on-street parking spaces in that section, where there are no parking controls, and numerous spaces particularly to the west, only a short walk of 50 metres or so from No 113. The salon business would only operate during the daytime on weekdays and on Saturday mornings. With only one client at a time there would be at most only one extra parked car during those periods. The additional demand for on-street parking would thus be minimal and can be readily accommodated in the vicinity.

The Council and Local Highway Authority (LHA) regard any additional on-street parking as undesirable, but in this lightly trafficked road with low traffic speeds there is no evidence of any significant highway safety problem arising from parked cars or parallel parking manoeuvres. Local drivers and pedestrians take suitable care given the prevailing conditions. One more parked car from time to time during the daytime on weekdays and on Saturday mornings would have no noticeable effect on highway conditions in the area.

For these reasons, providing the on-site parking area is not used by clients, the proposal would not result in unacceptable highway safety risks as result of the site access and/or on-street car parking. The proposal thus complies with policies LP13, LP14 and LP21 of the [name] & West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-40 which seek to provide safe and convenient access for all modes and ensure sufficient car parking facilities are available.

The Council suggested three conditions should the appeal be allowed and these have been assessed against the relevant tests. In addition to the standard implementation time limit it is necessary to define the approved plans in the interests of certainty and to limit the times of operation of the business to manage the impact on near neighbours and parking demand in the vicinity. In addition, following consultation with the parties, it is necessary to preclude client use of the on-site parking area, limit business use to the appellant personally and to one client at a time to maintain highway safety and control over the nature of business use in future. The request of the LHA for a full operational management plan is excessive and unreasonable in the circumstances.

Having regard to the above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the following approved plans: 01-RevV1 Site Location Plan 01-RevV4 Proposed Block Plan 02-RevV1 Existing Block Plan 04-RevV1 [name] and Elevations

The use hereby permitted shall only be carried on between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday, 10am to 1pm on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

The use of the building as a nail and beauty salon shall be carried on only by [name] personally whilst occupying No [site address] Snettisham with no employees, only one client at a time and no overlapping appointments. On cessation of the nail and beauty salon use the building shall revert to use as an ancillary outbuilding to the dwelling.

The parking spaces within the curtilage of the host property No [site address] Snettisham shall not be used for client parking at any time.