Agenda item

Mr S Grigson made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that advances in technology had enabled people to work from home but that this type of home working was different. He commented that the proposed use was more akin to a retail shop use.  He advised that there were no restrictions regarding employees.  He reported that the road frontage was very open and gardens had low walls. As such the proposal would adversely impact on the amenity of neighbours in terms of the disturbance caused by visitors and parking. He commented that the circumstances of this application were different to those of a similar application at No. 63 Oxford Road, where the site was set back from the road and was well screened.  He suggested that one intention of working from home was to minimise travel.  He considered that this proposal would result in increased traffic to the area as clients would visit the property and that this traffic generation was contrary to the objectives of the policy on home working.

Mr Talbot also made a statement objecting to the application commenting that the area was residential and that approval of the proposal would set a precedent for similar applications in the area.  He referred to the number of clients which would visit the property expressing concern regarding loss of privacy; increased traffic; parking; damage to verges and pavements and loss of outlook.  He explained that he would be able to view the commercial premises from his garden and he expressed concern regarding the number of staff which could be employed.  He commented that there was already a hair dresser and shops nearby which served the local community and that there was no need for the proposal.  He commented that the proposal would change the character of the area causing harm to the amenity of neighbours.  Finally, he questioned whether approval would be personal to the applicant should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

Mr Homewood made a statement on behalf of the applicant referring to the improvements made to the property.  He reported that the outbuilding had been installed by the previous owner. He explained that it was unobtrusive and that there would be no noise, smell or other disturbance from its proposed use and that there would be no loss of amenity.  He advised that there was 6ft high fencing along one boundary and the applicant was willing to provide similar fencing along the other boundary.  He reported that there was sufficient parking on site for customers and that there was excellent visibility when entering and leaving the driveway.  He reported that there would be no deliveries and that there were numerous types of businesses run from home and he gave several examples of others locally. He commented that in comparison to the examples given, the proposed use would not be a nuisance and there would be no adverse impact. Finally, he reported that the business would not be widely marketed. 

One Member referred to the expected level of customers commenting that based on this assumption the intended use would not be unreasonable.  However, he considered that if there were to be more customers visiting the site a level of use might be reached which would be unreasonable.  The Officers responded that conditions were proposed to prevent a further intensification of the use.  The hours of use were specified and the planning permission is approved was to be personal to the applicant although this did not prohibit the applicant employing someone to help with the business.

One Member commented that there were many self employed hairdressers working from home, which was acceptable if that work was subsidiary to the use of a domestic dwelling.  However, he was concerned that this proposal might set a precedent. He noted the commented of one of the speakers regarding the willingness to erect a fence along the opposite boundary and considered that this should be welcomed.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the local Members be delegated authority to approve application SAH/5911/4 subject to : -

(1)                     the conditions set out in the report; and

(2)                     further conditions to require the erection of a fence along the boundary and the restriction of use by limiting the number of employees.