Item No: 3 Reference: B/16/00999/FUL Parish: SHOTLEY Ward Members: Cllrs. Peter Patrick and Derek Davis Proposal: Location: Applicant: Change of use of dwelling (Class C3) to mixed use C3 (dwelling) and dog grooming business (Class Sui Generis) 2 Rose Court, Shotley, Ipswich IP9 1PB Mrs Helen Oliver Case Officer: Melanie Corbishley Date for Determination: 26 October 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission This application is referred to at the request of Councillor Davis. THE SITE 1. The application site relates to a detached bungalow in Rose Court, Shotley, which is within the Built Up Area Boundary. The site also contains a detached garage and there is driveway parking for three cars to the front of the garage and two further spaces along the northern boundary of the site to the west of the front door. 2. Rose Court is a cul de sac and comprises of bungalows. 3. There are no other applicable constraints to the site. THE PROPOSAL 4. The application seeks planning permission for a part change of use of the dwelling to a mixed use so that part of it can be used for dog grooming. Specifically, the plans indicate that the business use would be located in an existing rear conservatory. 5. The applicant has indicated that the business would operate on an appointment basis with only one dog/customer at any one time with approximately four appointments per day. Car parking for the business will be provided to the front of the existing garage. 6. The application documents can be viewed online via the planning pages on the District Council website. RELEVANT HISTORY 7. There is no planning history relevant to this proposal. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 8. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government s planning policies for England and sets out how these are expected to be applied. Planning law continues to require that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The policies contained within the NPPF are a material consideration and should be taken into account for decision-making purposes. 16 November 2016 15
9. The NPPF is supported by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which assists applicants and decision makers to interpret the NPPF. Both the NPPF and PPG are referred to within this report where relevant to the assessment. 10. Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to protect the health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, is relevant to the proposal. PLANNING POLICIES 11. The Development Plan comprises the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) and saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006. The following policies are applicable to this proposal; Babergh Core Strategy 2014 CS1 - Applying the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development in Babergh CS3 Strategy for Growth and Development CS15 - Implementing Sustainable Development in Babergh Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2 (2006) TP15 Parking Standards- New Development 12. The relevant policies can be viewed online. Please see the notes attached to the schedule. CONSULTATIONS 13. Shotley Parish Council Objects to the application for the following reasons: Insufficient parking provision Increased traffic movements Access for emergency vehicles could be impeded Noise and disturbance from the existing dogs onsite and any new ones bought to the site which would impact on the neighbour s amenity, particularly in the summer when the existing conservatory is left open and the dogs are in the garden Concerns that the business could expand which could be over development of the site and not in keeping with the area Concerns that the plans are not accurate and it is not clear where the business would operate from The area is residential and not suitable for a business/commercial use 14. Highway Authority- No objection subject to conditions regarding parking provision and frontage enclosure 15. Corporate Manager Environment Protection (Other Issues) -The following comments have been made:- The proposed use can be associated with noise, both from barking and the grooming process itself. Therefore residential locations are generally not ideal for this use. 16 November 2016 16
In terms of barking, this will be subjective depending on the character of each dog being groomed. The applicant acknowledges that barking is more likely to occur if dogs are unattended, which will not be the case, and states that any dogs that do start barking can be isolated in the kitchen. It is therefore likely that barking may be minimised by appropriate management. In terms of equipment, noisy items such as air drying equipment may be used which have the potential to cause loss of amenity at nearby premises, especially if the doors/windows at the premises are open during their use. It is likely that the type of equipment would be domestic in scale. (Note - additional information regarding the noise level generated is requested to ensure that neighbour amenity would not be materially harmed and if necessary a condition can be attached if appropriate). I would suggest that the hours of operation would need to be limited to those given in the application (08.30 17.00 Monday-Friday, 08.30 12.30hrs Saturdays with no working on Sundays or bank holidays. The planning statement advises that there would be only one dog being groomed at any one time, with ample time between appointments to prevent more than one customer being on site at any time - I would also suggest that the number of appointments available per day be limited by means of condition, by negotiation with the applicant. Finally a condition should be attached to any consent to the effect that all waste produced in connection with the proposed use shall be disposed of in accordance with the duty of care requirements as given in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. REPRESENTATIONS 16. Five letters of representation have been received making the following comments: Increase in parked vehicles in Rose Court that would be harmful to existing residents Parking spaces at No.2 are in constant use by the applicant and her family Insufficient parking Noise from dogs barking which would be exacerbated by strange dogs arriving to be groomed, particularly in the summer when the existing conservatory is left open and the dogs are in the garden Noise and disturbance from the grooming equipment Concerns about the precedent this permission may set for future developments which could alter the character of the cul de sac Plans do not match the plans approved under reference B/11/01362 Business use not appropriate in a cul de sac mainly populated by elderly residents Concerns about the future growth of the business What restrictions can be put in place for the dog breeding, selling the business on as a going concern in the future? One of the dogs causing a recent disturbance belongs to the applicant s mother who has now agreed to make alternative arrangements for when she is away on holiday PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Main Considerations 17. In light of the above planning policy context and the representations/consultation responses received, the following are identified as the main considerations in assessing this application; The potential impact of the proposed use on neighbours amenity, by virtue of noise and disturbance 16 November 2016 17
Parking provision The Impact of the Use on Neighbours Amenity 18. The grooming use is proposed to be confined to the existing conservatory to the rear of No.2 Rose Court. The applicant intends to use an appointment based system on a one in, one out basis with only one dog at the premises at any one time. It is envisaged that there would be approximately four appointments per day and that the operating hours would be 8:30am till 5:30pm Monday to Friday and 8:30am to 12:30pm on Saturdays. The business would not operate on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The finishing time of 5:30pm differs from the time suggested in the supporting statement (5pm). The Environmental Protection officer has confirmed that a finishing time of 5:30pm would be acceptable. 19. Access to the grooming salon would be via an existing side garden gate. The applicant intends to erect an internal safety gate to create a safety zone so that clients can enter the site but without the possibility of making contact with the applicant s own dogs and in order to prevent the likelihood of dogs escaping into the close. 20. Concerns have been raised both by the Parish Council and nearby neighbours regarding noise and disturbance from the business. Given the contents of the supporting statement, it is considered that the grooming business on its own would be fairly low key with only four appointments per day. The applicant has confirmed that all visits would be by appointment only and that there would be no walk in appointments. The number of appointments and the requirement of an appointment system can be controlled by a suitably worded planning condition. The Environmental Protection officer considers the operating hours to be acceptable and these can be controlled by planning condition should members approve the application. 21. Existing noise created by barking dogs belonging to the applicant is outside the control of planning. The addition of up four dogs per day visiting the property may increase the likelihood of barking but not to such a degree that it would be considered materially harmful to the amenity of nearby neighbours. 22. Concerns have been raised regarding noise and disturbance from the proposed grooming equipment both from neighbours and the Council s Environmental Protection team. Details of this equipment and in particular the noise levels created when the equipment is in use have been requested and will be verbally reported to planning committee and or by means of an addendum paper. 23. The applicant has made reference to other services she plans to provide such as ultrasound scanning of pregnant dogs and microchipping of dogs. It is not clear from the applicant s statement whether she intends to carry out these services at home or by appointment elsewhere. This application relates solely to a dog grooming business. Should the application be approved and the applicant wish to carry out additional services from her property, an amendment to the permission would be required. 24. The applicant has made reference to offering work experience or an apprenticeship in the future, and concerns have been raised that this would increase the noise and disturbance form the site. This application relates to the use of an existing conservatory by one person for dog grooming. To ensure that the nature of the business is compatible with the existing residential area, it is considered necessary to impose a condition restricting the business to just one operator, therefore ruling out the applicant having employees. A further condition restricting the operation of the business to the conservatory only is also considered necessary to ensure that the scale and nature of the business is commensurate with the residential area. 16 November 2016 18
25. The application is considered to comply with Policy CS15 as the proposal would provide an element of local employment and a service for the local community that is currently not available. Parking Provision 26. Policy TP15 states that proposals for all types of new development will be required to provide parking in accordance with parking standards adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Suffolk Guidance for Parking (November 2015) document states that a four bedroom property should have three spaces. 27. The proposal indicates five parking spaces that would be shared between the new business and the existing residential use. Whilst concerns have been raised by local residents, this number of spaces is considered appropriate and acceptable for the existing dwelling and the new business. No objection has been raised by the Highways Authority with regards parking, highway safety and access and therefore there is no reason to refuse the application on highway grounds. Other matters 28. The applicant makes reference to a first aid course to be run at the local village hall. This will not be operated at 2 Rose Court and is therefore not a matter for this application. 29. The applicant has indicated that she is a hobby dog breeder, and that her dogs produce just one litter a year. As this is less than 5 litters per year, it is not deemed to be a breeding establishment that requires a licence from the Environmental Protection. Should the applicant s hobby remain at the level it is beyond the control of the planning department. 30. One neighbour is concerned that the current layout of the dwelling does not match the approved drawings from an application in 2011. The layout of the existing dwelling matches the layout of the existing drawing shown on the drawings in 2011. Whilst permission was granted for extensions, it is the applicant s choice as to whether or not they wish to implement the consent. 31. Concern has been raised about a permission setting precedent for other similar developments. Members are respectfully reminded that precedent is not a material consideration and all planning proposals must be considered on their own merits. Crime and Disorder 32. Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, in the assessment of this application but the proposal does not raise any significant issues. Biodiversity and Protected Species 33. In assessing this application due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006, in so far as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 in relation to protected species. 16 November 2016 19
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2015 (as amended) 34. When determining planning applications The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires Local Planning Authorities to explain how, in dealing with the application they have worked with the applicant to resolve any problems or issues arising. In this case the applicant provided additional supporting information to clarify activities to supplement the application. RECOMMENDATION Grant planning permission, subject to conditions including:- Standard Time Limit List of Approved Drawings and Documents Operating times Restriction to room to be used for grooming Parking provision to be retained Sound levels of operating equipment (if appropriate dependent on further comments by the Environmental Protection officer)) Number of appointments per day Maintenance of an appointments register Erection of safety gate 16 November 2016 20