Appeal 6006899

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of garden building and use as nail salon (Class E) (Retrospective) at [site address] , Blaydon, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00295/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The use hereby permitted shall only be operated by a person living at [site address] . No other person shall be employed in the operation of the business nor shall any other chairs or space within the building be rented out.

The use hereby permitted shall be limited to a nail salon only and shall not be used for any other non-domestic purpose.

The use hereby permitted shall only be open to customers between the hours of 09:00 - 16:30 on Monday to Wednesday and 09:00 - 18:00 Friday and Saturday, and at no times on Thursdays and Sundays.

The use hereby permitted shall operate on a pre-booked appointment basis only. Appointments shall allow sufficient time to avoid multiple customers waiting or overlapping. Appointment records shall be kept at all times and made available to the Council to inspect upon request.

The description of the development above was taken from the planning application form removing the reference to the development being retrospective as this is not an act of development.

The building has been erected and was in use as a nail salon at the time of my visit. I have therefore assessed the appeal on that basis. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

My attention has been drawn to an application for the conversion of a room in a dwelling to a self-contained beauty salon1. My assessment has taken that decision 1 APP/X1355/W/25/3369054 into account, although I am mindful that each case must be determined on its own merits.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in regard to noise and disturbance and the living conditions of the occupants of 12 [name] in regard to privacy; and • the effect of the proposal on the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network with regard to parking provision.

The appeal site [site address] , is a mid-terrace dwelling, located in a predominantly residential area. The rear garden is bound on all sides by high fencing.

The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of a garden building and its use as a nail salon. The appellant occupies [site address] which would remain in residential use. The use has already commenced, and the business has been in operation for several months.

The supporting information confirms that the appellant works alone from the building with only one client attending at any time with no overlap between appointments. Through the course of the application the appellant agreed to operate the business between the hours of 09:00 to 16:30 and Friday and Saturday between 9:00 and 18:00 and would be closed on Thursdays and Sundays, with a maximum of six clients per day.

This form of development is not uncommon and it is beneficial to small businesses in terms of reducing overheads and balancing work with homelife to accommodate other commitments, such as childcare. Provided such businesses are of suitable scale and are well managed, they do not usually result in harm to occupiers of adjacent properties. In addition, planning conditions may be imposed to ensure the acceptability of a development, as encouraged by paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

During my site visit I noted that the appeal site lies within a quiet suburban setting and experienced a low noise level typical of a residential street; with sounds arising from passing vehicles, lawn mowers, barking dogs and individuals carrying out day to day activities. Therefore, the properties most likely to experience noise and disturbance from the nail salon use would be within the area immediately surrounding the appeal site.

The use of the garden building as a nail salon will inevitably generate some additional comings and goings. However, this would be limited due to the nature of the business with the appellant working on their own. Furthermore, the number of people in the building at any one time would rarely be more than two and would not be at a level that would generate much more activity than a domestic outbuilding in use by a family or friends, for example as a home gym, games room or garden room.

I accept there would be some noise from talking, short intermittent periods of associated noises such as mechanical nail filing, and potentially some low level background music. At the time of my visit, when it was warm outside, I could hear the sound of voices from over the rear garden fence. This was not loud enough for me to hear what was being said and was no different to the noise I could hear from other rear gardens that I walked past in the area.

Given the residential location, I do not consider that very early morning, late evening or Sunday appointments, would be appropriate as background noise from adjacent gardens and the surrounding streets are likely to be much lower at those times. Based upon the appellant’s submissions they would be happy to limit their hours of operation to ensure noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupants is mitigated.

Clients visiting the salon access the rear garden building through a shared access to the side of No 12 [name]. This dwelling has a window, which serves a habitable room, on its front elevation next to the access. Still, this property has a front garden area that ensures clients do not pass the window directly, in addition windows on front elevation typically face the public realm which can reduce privacy to a degree. Given the scale of the business, it is not considered that any perception of harm to privacy would be greater than that associated with the use of the access expected as part of a residential dwelling.

I therefore conclude that, subject to suitable planning conditions, the continued use of the garden outbuilding as a nail salon operated by a single person on an appointment only basis, would not result in harm to the living conditions of occupiers of adjacent residential properties as a result of increased comings and goings and non-residential activity. It would therefore accord with Policy MSGP17 of [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead 2017 (MSGP) which allows development that does not cause unacceptable disturbance, through an increase in noise and disturbance and seeks to safeguard privacy. The use also accords with paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seeks to ensure amongst other things that development does not undermine quality of life.

[name] is a short residential street, which is bound on both ends by [address] which curves around it. The appeal property, like most on the street, benefits from a single off-road parking space and visitor parking is provided within the local road layout.

I acknowledge that [name] is a public road where anyone can park. However, the estate and its roads were designed for residential, not business use. The number of cars visiting the property would be increased by the business use as most households do not have multiple visitors arriving and leaving throughout the day for most days of the week, and delivery drivers are only present for a few minutes at a time. The increase in on-street parking caused by the business use is therefore a material planning consideration.

At the time of my visit, late on a Tuesday morning, the car parking space at the front of the appeal property was empty, with a notice saying the space was reserved for clients. There was a single client present at the time of my site visit, yet several cars were parked partially on the pavement on the street, which given their number and position, are unlikely to all be connected to the appellant’s business use. While the cars parked on the footway may have caused a degree of obstruction, the road is not busy and the footpath on the street is wide. I also saw that parking partially on the footway leaves more space for cars manoeuvring on and off the driveways opposite.

The Council Transport Officer raised no material objections to the proposed scheme. Within their response they stated that, given the scale of the business, clients could be accommodated by on-street visitor car parking spaces. However, this was on the provision that suitably worded conditions prevent more than one client visiting at any one time and that the operating time of the business is limited to interpeak hours of 09:00 to 16:00. As detailed above the appellant has indicated that they would accept to limit their hours of operation to be largely within interpeak hours and they have also stated that they would manage bookings to ensure no more than one client would be present on site at a time with no overlaps.

Given the scale of the development, it is considered that the appellant’s proposed hours of operation detailed above are a reasonable compromise and would ensure that the business would operate largely outside of times where parking demand is higher. Furthermore, I have been advised within several representations from customers that they live locally and walk to their appointments.

Therefore, subject to proactive and considerate business management, by the appellant, there is no reason why a business of the scale and nature before me should be detrimental to other highway users. Many other similar home businesses operate successfully on this basis. Imposing planning conditions to ensure the business can only be operated by the occupier of number 11, on an appointment only basis, within a limited time frame, would ensure any increase in on-street parking generated by the use would be negligible.

I therefore conclude that subject to suitable planning conditions, the continued use of the garden outbuilding as a salon would not compromise highway or pedestrian safety. It would therefore accord with Policies CS13 and MSGP15 of the MSGP which seek to ensure that development will not have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the transport network. It would also accord with paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on highway grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are “severe”.

I have carefully considered the comments from several interested parties, some of which have been addressed in my reasoning above. I note the Council raised no concerns in regard to the principle of the development, odour, health impacts, loss of trees and the effect of the garden building itself on the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree with the Council in regard to these matters. Several representations raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on the Conservation Area. However, the appeal site is not within a Conservation Area and would not effect any heritage assets.

I note concerns regarding the business not being listed on the Valuation Office Agency register or [address], as well as restrictive covenants on land that includes the appeal site. There is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that this is the case and even if it was these matters are not material planning considerations. Additionally, health and safety, fire safety and the management of hazardous waste are controlled under separate legislation.

Several representations have indicated that the appellant rents the appeal property and does not own it. Still, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that there are any reasons why the appellant should be prevented from submitting this appeal.

Given the location of the site within a residential estate, conditions are necessary to control the scale of the business in terms of staff and customer numbers, its hours of operation and specific use. This is particularly necessary because planning permission runs with the site and not the appellant, and personal circumstances can also change. Changes in the future could result in the business being operated differently or more intensively than it is at present if conditions were not imposed, which could in turn result in harm to the living conditions of neighbours and increase the risk of customer cars obstructing the road, footpaths and driveways.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.