Beauty industry loses appeal with semi-permanent makeup operation in Sunderland garage

The planning department of Sunderland City Council had refused plans for the Calshot Road property.

Earlier in 2021, the planning department of Sunderland City Council turned down plans for a property at Calshot Road in the Castle district.

The application was to turn a garage into a “semi-permanent makeup business” with a range of jobs.

This included the installation of a false wall and a door from the garden to the garage, as well as the installation of fire-resistant plasterboard and then the decoration.

Register to our daily newsletter

Newsletter cut through the noise

According to the town planning documents, the request was qualified as retrospective because it was carried out without a building permit.

After consultation, city planners turned down the plans on several grounds, including increased parking and road safety, as well as noise from future customers having a “detrimental effect on amenities for nearby residents.”

The applicant then appealed against the city council’s decision, the matter being referred to the Planning Inspectorate and to Planning Inspector Alison Scott appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the plans.

After examining all the representations, the urban planning inspector confirmed the council’s decision to refuse the make-up business plan and rejected the appeal at the end of November 2021.

The town planning inspector concluded that there would be no “harmful nuisance” to the living conditions of neighbors because of the proposed use in terms of “noise or disturbance from visiting customers”.

This included noise from the beauty procedures contained in the building and limited activity initially before expanding services to “no more than three clients during the day”.

However, the urban planning inspector raised concerns about the impacts on road safety in terms of development potentially “amplifying” local parking problems.

During an on-site visit, the town planning inspector also observed parking pressures in the area.

This included visitor parking areas “heavily occupied” by parked vehicles with a “ripple effect on local roads with on-street parking and sidewalk-mounted cars near the call site.”

While acknowledging that the appellant intended to run the business with a “reduced capacity to start”, the Planning Inspector concluded that the proposals “would intensify parking conditions in the local area where parking levels are already stressed ”.

The urban planning inspector added that she could not be certain that the proposal, and the removal of the parking provision by changing the use of the garage, would not “move the appellant’s own vehicle elsewhere in the area. local area ”.

The ruling report goes on to say, “Even though I have found that no harm will be done to the living conditions of local residents, [the proposal] would cause a significant road safety problem in a residential area which currently suffers from on-street parking conflicts.

“On this basis, the appeal must fail.”

The full report of the appeal decision can be viewed on the Planning Inspectorate’s website by searching for the reference: APP / J4525 / W / 21/3279429

Source link

Comments are closed.