APPROVAL by keara



LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 CHESTNUT DRIVE MANSFIELD NG184PW CHANGE OF USE OF GARAGE TO WORK AREA FOR CURTAIN MAKING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PERMISSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE This is a retrospective application for the change of use of a garage at a residential property to a work area for curtain making. The business presently operates from an integral garage space which has been fully enclosed and converted for this use. The business currently employs two people, one of whom is the occupier of the property. Work is undertaken on weekdays only and requires the use of four machines, although the applicant has advised that only a single machine is used at any one time. The applicants have estimated that, on average, two vehicles per week visit the site in connection with the business being carried on, however this is variable from week to week. This bungalow is situated within a predominantly residential area and abuts other dwellings on all sides. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY The applicant submitted a Working From Home Enquiry Form (HE2) in September 2003 in respect of using a spare bedroom at the property two to three days per week for making curtains. It was advised in writing that planning permission would not be required for a use of this type, based on the information stated on the HE2 form. Following a complaint from a member of the public in October 2005, the applicant was invited to submit a Business Premises Enquiry Form (BE1) to determine the current level of usage at the property. This enquiry form indicated an intensification of the business in terms of extended operating hours, extended number of days on which work now takes place, a greater number of machines being used and the additional requirement for deliveries to take place to the premises. The Local Planning Authority was of the opinion that this level of usage represented a material change of use and therefore planning permission was required.


OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED Throughout this report observations received in respect of each application are presented in summary form. The full letters are available for inspection both prior to and at the meeting. Anyone wishing to make further comments in relation to the application must ensure these are received by the Council by 12 noon on the last working day before the date of the Committee. 1) Head of Leisure and Technical Services - Highways

No highway observations on the proposed change of use. 2) Risk and Community Protection Manager

I would consider the proposed change of use to be inappropriate in this residential area. Although the Environmental Health Service has not received any complaints regarding the activities (curtain making) at this address so far, this proposal, if permitted, is likely to lead to an increase in activity, including vehicle movements, that may cause unnecessary disturbance and possible nuisance to nearby residents. 3) Building Control Manager

I understand there will be no structural alterations, or building work, therefore an application will not be required under Building Regulations. Should customers visit the premises access from the site boundary up to and into the premises should be suitable for disabled persons. If customer parking is provided the space should be suitable for disabled motorists, i.e. 2.4m wide x 4.8m long with an additional 1.2m wide transfer zone to the rear and one side. 4) Members of the Public

Objections have been received by the occupiers of No.6 Chestnut Drive and No.1 The Avenue. These objections are summarised below:        The applicant property is located within a reputable residential area. The granting of permission will set a precedent for this type of development at other properties in the area. A covenant in the title deeds prevents the carrying on of this business at the property. The area has a strictly residential function. The proposal has increased the number of vehicles visiting the site and caused access problems for occupiers of adjacent properties. The road is not suitable for use by heavy vehicles. Noise from the business can be heard from the garden of an adjacent property during the summer months.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/12/2005        Delivery drivers have caused disturbance to occupiers of an adjacent property by calling at adjacent properties by mistake. Health & Safety regulations may be being breached. Alternative, non-residential, sites are available for such business uses within the Mansfield District. The business is a potential fire hazard. The proposal has reduced the value of property prices in the area. Adequate waste disposal facilities do not appear to have been provided. The business is being openly advertised.

POLICY & GUIDANCE Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 – Industrial And Commercial Development And Small Firms Paragraph 33 of the guidance states: Once the business or non-residential use of the property ceases to be ancillary to its use as a single dwelling because, for example, the business has grown and the use of the dwelling for activities related to the business has intensified, a material change of use is likely to have taken place. The likelihood of there having been such a material change of use may be indicated where the business or non-residential use generates visitors, traffic, noise or fumes over and above what might be expected if the property were in use as a single dwelling without any ancillary use. Local planning authorities should take steps to ensure that such developments are effectively controlled and should be prepared to refuse planning permission or to use their enforcement powers where appropriate. Mansfield District Plan 1998 No applicable policies. ISSUES The main issues for consideration in respect of this application are the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties and the suitability of the location for business use. Suitability of the location The operation of a business from a dwelling house can be acceptable providing that the business use does not generate a significant level of noise, fumes or pedestrian and vehicular activity to the site. In relation to businesses working from home, Planning Policy Guidance 4 – Industrial and Commercial Development (PPG4) states that a material change of use may be indicated where the business generates visitors traffic, noise or fumes over and above what might be expected of the property were it in use as a single dwelling. PPG4 also advises that local planning authorities should take steps to ensure

PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/12/2005 that such developments are effectively controlled, and should be prepared to refuse planning permission or to use enforcement powers where appropriate. In this instance, the use of this property for the making of curtains involves periodic visiting by a trade representative, the delivery of materials to the premises and the collection of goods by a single customer. The applicants have estimated that, on average, two business visits to the site arise per week and have advised that collection and delivery is made by goods vehicles. I would consider that the pattern and type of vehicular activity associated with the business currently being undertaken at the property extends beyond that which would reasonably be expected to occur at a dwellinghouse. Impact on amenity of local residents The garage has been converted to accommodate the business, and a temporary wall has been erected to enclose the room adjacent to the garage door. As such, the room is poorly ventilated with the only opening being afforded via a double door positioned on the side elevation. This door, when closed, serves to reduce the noise produced from the garage when work is occurring. I am of the opinion however that, should this door be left open during working hours, for example during summer months, the level of prolonged noise generated by the work occurring in the garage, including the potential noise disturbance generated by the use of machinery, is likely to be detrimental to the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers. This is of particular relevance given the close proximity of the garden area of an adjacent property to the garage. Chestnut Drive and the adjacent streets represent a relatively quiet residential location and I consider that such a predominantly residential area is an inappropriate location for this curtain making business. I consider that the comings and goings to the site, and the sound generated as a result of this business being carried on, are a source of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the residential amenity of the area, as demonstrated by the objections received from local residents. In the view of the Community & Risk Protection Manager this change of use is inappropriate within a residential area. Additionally, should this business use be granted permission, the potential for other similar business uses to develop and seek planning permission at residential properties in this area is increased. CONCLUSION To summarise, I am of the opinion that the carrying out of this business at the applicant property has resulted in an increase in vehicular activity and noise and disturbance at the site. The increased comings and goings to the property, and the noise generated by the carrying out of this business, extends beyond that which would be reasonably be expected at a residential location. Having considered the above issues, and in light of the comments received by the Community & Risk Protection Manager and local residents, I recommend that planning permission be refused and that authority to take enforcement action be authorised.


RECOMMENDATION I recommend that planning permission be refused and that authorisation be given for the service of an enforcement notice to cease the use of the curtain making business. RECOMMENDED REASON FOR REFUSAL (1) Reason: The operation of the curtain making business from this residential property is detrimental to the reasonable residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties by reason of increased noise, activity and disturbance, including increased vehicular movements.


To top