The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute 19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.
David Rowan presented the application to Members and informed them that updates had been received as per the documents circulated (attached).
Members received a presentation in accordance with public participation from Mr Ken Byron, neighbour of the site being considered. His statement was as follows:
"Firstly I would like to know how many of those that are here today attended the site visit?" Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that the majority of the Members present were at the site visit. Mr Byron continued:
"(Referring to the photograph shown) This is my garage door. To say I was surprised at this application is an understatement. I was horrified that a resident would want to set up a commercial business in a quiet residential area. The parlour would be 3ft away from my garden and to see it has been accepted in principal is a disappointment. The commercial use applied for is clearly inappropriate and out of character for a cul-de-sac. There are two dog grooming parlours in the are, one big, one small. I disagree with environmental health there would be noise produced by the commercial dryers and the dogs barking before, during and after their grooming, the dryers would be on for 40-60 minutes and longer for bigger dogs. One parlour we have been to see, the groomer where ear protectors against the noise. We expect constant noise nuisance when we sit so close to the garage. I wondered if planning and environmental officers have visited local parlours to see what goes on. The driveway is a tunnel type with high fences and goes straight onto the road with little or no vision as the front elevation is 12inches from the path. The joining view of residents is that the clients would park on the road and on the pavement as they would be apprehensive about putting their car on a narrow driveway. There will be an increase in traffic and parking is already a problem, those on the site visit would have seen this. He stated that the Highways and Town Council expressed concerns. I feel it is a totally inappropriate disruption and I ask the committee to reject".
Cllr Alex Miscandlon invited questions to Mr Byron to which there were none.
The item was opened for general discussion.
Cllr Peter Murphy stated that in the report on page 47, it states there would be no detrimental harm will be caused from the proposal and therefore meets LP2, LP15 and LP16. He referred committee to LP2 and stated it fails on a lot of the bullet points - 1,2,5,7,8,9 and 12. Then we go on to 15 and 16, LP15 on bullet point 1, states development on the site should be located and designed so it can maximise accessibility and increase the use of non- car modes. He stated that anyone that is going to take a dog there is likely to drive as it is located on the outskirts of Chatteris. In relation to LP16 this application fails on (d) and (e), (e) especially as this states it does not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring use, such as noise, light, pollution, privacy and loss of life. He stated he personally thinks that this does impact on noise, parking on the road and access. He stated that on the site visit, they went during the day when people were at work and there were cars on the road and it was difficult to get through so additional traffic would make it more difficult for people. He stated he thinks this would change the character and the appearance because of the nature of the business. It is a new and quiet residential site and this would be affected. He stated that he thought about whether he would be prepared to live next to this business and he stated he wouldn't.
Cllr Ann Hay stated that she agreed with Cllr Peter Murphy, LP2 states that we should be promoting high levels of residential amenity. She referred the committee to page 50 of the report on the first paragraph it states that on the boundary of No. 16 St. Francis Drive, the confined built form means that the residential amenity of these properties will be directly exposed to the proposed business. She felt this was at odds with LP2. Cllr Ann Hay then referred to the next paragraph where it states that there will be a low level of noise will be emitted as there will be plaster boarding and double glazing, but questioned what was going to be done to the up and over garage door. She stated that if sitting in the garden, then the noise would be annoying. She stated that she lives near a business in a cul-de-sac and the traffic does cause a problem.
Cllr Mrs Laws asked why they approve development in nice residential areas, and then decide to put commercial businesses in there. She stated there were other more appropriate locations for this and doesn't understand why this type of business would even be considered in this area. She asked in relation to the drainage, there would be an increase in usage of water with a commercial business, and therefore didn't feel it was compatible.
Cllr Will Sutton stated that he is of a different view, and that without opportunity, the would be stopping the applicant increasing their business and moving into a more appropriate premises. He stated that a previously application in March has similar objections to the one being considered, and it was agreed that they would let the business go for 12 months to let the business prove that the fears of neighbouring residents wouldn't be a concern. He stated that March Town Council were against it and 12 months later, they approved the application and there were no letters of objection from the neighbours. He asked if they wished to deny this business the chance to prove there were no concerns, which he didn't think they should. He stated if it does prove to be of concern then it goes but felt they should be encouraging businesses, and agreed with the recommendation.
Cllr Ann Hay stated that she had recently walked through Chatteris High Street and saw at least two or three properties that would suit this business, so why weren't these considered instead.
Cllr Mrs Laws stated that she didn't want to discourage business, but that it needed to be in an appropriate place. She referred to a business that had been started in Whittlesey that was a complete nightmare, they had enforcement in. She stated that residents and objectors need to be listened to.
Cllr Mrs Newell stated that she knew the area well, and the road was narrow and felt it was not the best place for a business.
Cllr Michael Bucknor stated that Cllr Will Sutton had made a strong argument but he disagreed with his comments following a visit to the site. He stated it is too narrow, the houses are very close together as can be seen from the photograph. There is only a wooden fence dividing them, and he reflected on whether he would like to live next door to this, which he stated he wouldn't. He added that there could be some residential areas that this may work in but not this one.
Nick Harding stated that he wanted to respond to some of the debate and to highlight that in some circumstances business can run from residential properties without the need for planning permission. He stated there is no Government legislation which defines where planning permission would be needed. He stated this case is hovering on the boundary, and officers have determined that this would need to be in place. The Government have been clear that if operating as a child minder then planning permission would not be needed unless you were employing third parties and you can have up to 6 children, in relation to the comings and goings, increased traffic, and planning use this as a benchmark for those wishing to run a business from a residential property. He stated that the Government has no issue in principal with businesses running from home, depending on the suitability of the business. Members have raised concerns about traffic on the site, parking- the proposed hours are 9am to 3pm which would avoid the peak areas of residents coming and going. He stated that having said this he is mindful of all the Members comments and if they are proposing to refuse they need to identify concerns with regards to parking and traffic as reasons for this.
Cllr Peter Murphy stated that he understood the person could have taken it on but has the knowledge that planning would need to be informed. He stated that he felt the hours of business were not going to be sufficient for the business to be made.
Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated that the officers recommendations were to approve the application, with Cllr Will Sutton reiterating that he recommends the business is given the chance of 12 months. He stated that he accepts what other Members have said in terms of other buildings within the High Street, there are costs involved and that the applicant would be denied the chance to have 12 months to build up the business enough to move into bigger property.
Cllr Will Sutton then recommended a proposal on the grounds of supporting small business growth. There was no seconder for this, therefore Cllr Alex Miscandlon stated the proposal fails.
Cllr Peter Murphy then proposed that the application is refused, and Cllr Alex Miscandlon requested that there needs to be definitive reasons for this.
Cllr Peter Murphy stated that the noise levels emitted, the concerns over parking and access to the property do not meet the requirements of LP2, LP15 and LP16.
Cllr Mrs Laws seconded this.
This application was REFUSED