Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report as published.

 

There were 2 objectors present.

 

The first objector is a local resident Catherine Barnes spoke in objection and made the following points:

-       It is possible that at certain times there can be 11 dogs in the vicinity.

-       The dryers are loud and can be heard along with the staff talking louder over the dryers to be heard.

-       The nature and enjoyment of homes and gardens is being affected due to the intrusive noise and additional vehicle use.

-       Impacted how she works from home and her leisure time and as a key worker it has given her an increasing feeling of unfairness.

 

 

 

The Ward Councillor Karl Hobley spoke on behalf of the residents and raised the following points regarding the application:

-       There is an impact on the route that is used for parents and children walking to and from school as there is increased traffic due to people visiting the property. 

-       There is a disturbance to neighbours due to the use of dryers, vehicles and dog noise.

-       This is a small tight street that was a mews lane with small low rise houses and residents are concerned that 1 business will leave the door open for other businesses to open in the area.

-       There are obviously concerns regarding putting the business at risk, however the belief is that it should be fairly easy for them to locate particularly in the current climate.

 

The matter then went to Member questions as follows:

-       The residents believe that the road is an issue.  However the Highways department made no formal objection.  Why is there no highways officer present?

-        There has been one complaint to the Authority regarding noise.  However the complainant did not pursue it, have there been any further complaints about the noise. There is also a query regarding refuse and waste disposal.

-       When one Member visited the property the door was open, was this to comply with Covid regulations or is this normal practice.

-       One complainer used 70 decibels as the level of noise, is this acceptable for a residential area?

-        There is a restriction on time that the business operates rather, could there be one on the amount of dogs. 

-       Does the planning permission just apply to the downstairs of the property or will it apply to the upstairs which is currently residential.

 

The Senior Planning Officer answered as follows:

-       The lack of a highways officer is due to availability.

-       They have no other information from highways, there are no minimum parking standards to adhere to at the moment.  The level of impact of the vehicles is considered as low.

-       There have been no other noise complaints and the commercial waste arrangements are not known.

-        Not aware if the door being open is a Covid allowance or normal.

-       70 decibels that were mentioned is generally the level of noise that you expect in an office. 

-       The limit on the amount of dogs allowed at any one time is 4.  It would be hard to enforce a formal limitation.

-       With regards to the upper floor there will have to be further planning permission applied for which would result in losing a residential property.

 

 

The matter then went to Member debate:

 

-       We are short of residential properties in Cheltenham.  However we do have empty commercial premises that would be suitable rather than a relatively new build home.  The level of noise will disrupt the neighbours wishing to enjoy their outside space.

-       Congratulations to both of the objectors on their presentations.  Personally wouldn’t like noise if lived in the road.  Sad for the business however owners will follow them as they have a loyal following.  Can we give a period to find alternative accommodation?

-       Does not wish to support something that could prevent children walking to school, impact to the neighbours is not a good thing.  Understand that can’t use highways as a reason to refuse.

-       On google maps there is a large car in the road but it does show room to pass therefore traffic is not a reason not to support however there are other things to consider.

-       When one Member visited he was pleased to see the mix of architecture in the road with some modern houses.  The grooming parlour is in what was probably a very expensive house.  Concerned that there are 4 groomers in the parlour at one time and therefore 4 does seem a large a mount to have in at any one time.  This is a very heavily populated area and doesn’t think that it is suitable for a grooming parlour.  Therefore won’t support the application.

-       The business is in a mews house, and when visited it was very busy.  This is a business in a residential property, the front door was open and there was drier noise that wasn’t very loud but if you were a neighbour you would find it be very annoying.  Business has a huge amount of support – clearly a very good business but not in a residential home.  Should revert to housing, parlour will be a problem all year round with the doors open.

-       The impact on the neighbours thru noise is a good reason not to have the business where it is.  The applicant will have 6 months to appeal and therefore will have 6 months to find alternative accommodation whilst still running the business.

 

The senior planning officer responded that if Members to refuse the business would have time to appeal whilst still trading.  She advised that the refusal should be on amenity grounds rather than highways grounds.  The principal planning officer confirmed that refusal would have to be on amenity grounds based on the impact on the neighbourhood.

 

The matter then went to the vote to permit:

 

For:     

Against:  11

Abstain:

 

REFUSED

 

Chair then stated that committee has to decide on what grounds they were refusing.

 

-       One Councillor suggested HM3 SL1 and SD14

-       Another Member stated that HM3 was not suitable but SL1 and SD14 were the only options as loss of amenity.

-       Amenity was supported as a reason to refuse by another Member.

 

The Chair asked if the Member wanted to keep HN3 in as an option to the vote, he confirmed that he did.

 

Clarification was then received by the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that HM3 was not suitable.

 

The matter then went to the vote to agree the reason for refusal.  The first vote was to agree HM13:

 

For:      1

Against: 10

Abstain:

 

Not agreed

 

 

The second vote was to agree SL1:

 

For: 11

Against:

Abstain:

 

Agreed

 

The third vote was to agree SD14:

 

For:  11

Against:

Abstain:

 

Agreed

 

 

As HM13 was refused the matter then went to the vote to agree the reasons for refusal as SL1 and SD14:

 

For:  11

Against:

Abatain:

 

CARRIED