The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

This application relates to a change of use from C3 (dwellinghouse) to C3 (dwellinghouse) and Class E (Osteopathy Clinic) together with a part single/part two storey side extension to provide additional living accommodation at ground and first floor and clinic at ground floor.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and informed the Committee that a further representation had been received regarding the classification of representations received as a petition rather than a joint objection from residents.

An objector to the application addressed the Committee on behalf of thirty four residents. The objections referred to the accessibility of vehicles, the proposed change of use of the property and overdevelopment that were considered to be detrimental to the area and would result in disamenity. Reference was made to a previous application for an adjacent property which had been refused and what difference there was with the application being considered. Reference was also made to changes to the street scene, increased on street parking, loss of privacy and the size of the car park on to be included on the property and the conflict with planning policies.

The applicant addressed the Committee on the planning application.

Councillor Wilson (ward councillor) addressed the Committee on behalf of the other ward councillors to raise the joint objection of a large number of local residents and Barlow High School, regarding potential parking issues, traffic volume, accessibility and road safety. Other objections related to an overdevelopment due to the change of use of the property. The Committee was reminded of a previous application (2002) for a neighbouring property that had been refused for a change of use to a commercial property due to the location within a residential area and the potential increase in use and vehicle movement and parking causing a loss to residential amenity as referred to in the UDP.

The Planning Officer reported that in reference to the points raised regarding the impact to the character of the area, a very similar extension design had also been agreed for the adjacent property to the application site. The proposed extension design would be subservient to the main house and would be set back to provide a sense of space. There would be visual improvements to the property with the introduction of soft landscaping and removal of the existing garages. The removal of part of the boundary wall would allow a view into the property, however the proposal was considered to be acceptable. The Committee was advised that the application had been required for consideration due to the number of appointments the proposed business could generate during the day and it must be noted that it is an issue of fact and degree as to whether running a business from home requires planning permission. The application includes conditions to control the operation of the business and involves enforcement action if the conditions are not met. The inclusion of two car parking spaces had been examined by the highways officer and the space was considered to be large enough for cars to safely manoeuvre. 

The chair invited members of the Committee to ask questions.

Members referred to the property opposite with a similar design extension and asked officers if a business was run from the property. Officers were also asked if the building line of the proposed extension crossed the building line of properties on Craigweil Avenue and had changing the access to the property from Craigweil to Parrswood Road been considered. Officers were asked if the conditions proposed are sufficiently strong enough to prevent the intensification of the business and was a further application required if additional staff were to be employed.

The Committee was advised that the property adjacent is a private residence and did not run a business. The extension would be forward of the building line of the properties on Craigweil Avenue and that would mirror the property opposite which has a similar impact. Parking access and manoeuvring on Parrswood Road would be more difficult due to the volume of traffic. The parking spaces at the side of the property have sufficient space for cars to manoeuvre and the front of the property provides access to a parking space for the property owner. The application includes a planning statement and refers to the employment of staff at the business and the number of appointments. The Committee was advised that the planning statement can be  amended to reduce those numbers, if necessary.

Councillor Andrews moved the recommendation to approve the application, subject to:

·          an amendment to Condition 5 to amend the Planning Statement to specify the number of employees for the business premises and ensure appointment only basis for clients.

·          an additional condition for the requirement that the applicant applies for a “H” parking road marking to be installed at the visitor parking entrance of the property.

Councillor Shaukat Ali seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions detailed in the report submitted and subject to:

·         an amendment to Condition 5 to amend the Planning Statement to specify the number of employees for the business premises and ensure appointment only basis for clients.

·          an additional condition for the requirement of offsite highways marking, that the applicant applies for a “H” parking road marking to be installed at the visitor parking entrance of the property.

(Councillor Flanagan did not take part in the consideration or vote on the application.)