Agenda Document Pack - Moray Local Review Body - 14/03/2024
Moray Council · 14 March 2024
Back to Moray Local Review Body — 14 March 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Moray Local Review Body Thursday, 14 March 2024 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Meeting of the Moray Local Review Body is to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX on Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 09:30. BUSINESS 1 Sederunt 2 Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * 3 Minute of Meeting dated 15 February 2024 5 - 10 4 LR299 - Ward 6 - Elgin North Planning Application 23/01371/APP – Retrospective consent to convert part of garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent, Elgin 11 - 154 Summary of Local Review Body functions: To conduct reviews in respect of refusal of planning permission or unacceptable conditions as determined by the delegated officer, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers under Section 43(A)(i) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town & Country Planning (Scheme of Delegation and Local Review Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2013, or where the Delegated Officer has not determined the application within 3 months of registration. Page 1
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
GUIDANCE NOTES * Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests - The Chair of the meeting shall seek declarations from any individual or political group at the beginning of a meeting whether any prior decision has been reached on how the individual or members of the group will vote on any item(s) of business on the Agenda, and if so on which item(s). A prior decision shall be one that the individual or the group deems to be mandatory on the individual or the group members such that the individual or the group members will be subject to sanctions should they not vote in accordance with the prior decision. Any such prior decisions will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting. ** Written Questions - Any Member can put one written question about any relevant and competent business within the specified remits not already on the agenda, to the Chair provided it is received by the Proper Officer or Committee Services by 12 noon two working days prior to the day of the meeting. A copy of any written answer provided by the Chair will be tabled at the start of the relevant section of the meeting. The Member who has put the question may, after the answer has been given, ask one supplementary question directly related to the subject matter, but no discussion will be allowed. No supplementary question can be put or answered more than 10 minutes after the Council has started on the relevant item of business, except with the consent of the Chair. If a Member does not have the opportunity to put a supplementary question because no time remains, then he or she can submit it in writing to the Proper Officer who will arrange for a written answer to be provided within 7 working days. *** Question Time - At each ordinary meeting of the Committee ten minutes will be allowed for Members questions when any Member of the Committee can put a question to the Chair on any business within the remit of that Section of the Committee. The Member who has put the question may, after the answer has been given, ask one supplementary question directly related to the subject matter, but no discussion will be allowed. No supplementary question can be put or answered more than ten minutes after the Committee has started on the relevant item of business, except with the consent of the Chair. If a Member does not have the opportunity to put a supplementary question because no time remains, then he/she can submit it in writing to the proper officer who will arrange for a written answer to be provided within seven working days. Page 3
Page 4
MORAY COUNCIL Moray Local Review Body SEDERUNT Councillor Marc Macrae (Chair) Councillor Amber Dunbar (Depute Chair) Councillor Neil Cameron (Member) Councillor Juli Harris (Member) Councillor Sandy Keith (Member) Councillor Paul McBain (Member) Councillor Draeyk van der Horn (Member) Councillor Sonya Warren (Member) Clerk Name: Lissa Rowan Clerk Telephone: 07765 741754 Clerk Email: committee.services@moray.gov.uk Page 4
Page 5
MORAY COUNCIL Minute of Meeting of the Moray Local Review Body Thursday, 15 February 2024 Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX PRESENT Councillor Amber Dunbar, Councillor Juli Harris, Councillor Sandy Keith, Councillor Marc Macrae, Councillor Paul McBain, Councillor Sonya Warren APOLOGIES Councillor Neil Cameron, Councillor Draeyk van der Horn IN ATTENDANCE Mrs MacDonald, Senior Planning Officer and Mr Miller, Senior Planning Officer as Planning Advisers, Legal Services Manager as Legal Adviser and Mrs Rowan, Committee Services Officer as Clerk to the Moray Local Review Body. 1 Chair Councillor Macrae, being Chair of the Moray Local Review Body, chaired the meeting. 2 Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests In terms of Standing Order 21 and 23 and the Councillor's Code of Conduct, there were no declarations from Group Leaders or Spokespersons in regard to any prior decisions taken on how Members will vote on any item on the agenda or any declarations of Members interests in respect of any item on the agenda. 3 Minute of Meeting dated 18 January 2024 The Minute of the meeting dated 18 January 2024 was submitted and approved. 4 LR297 - Ward 8 - Forres Planning Application 23/00976/APP – Convert the Old Stable Bar to 3 holiday lets at Seaview Caravan Park, Findhorn Road, Kinloss A request was submitted by the Applicant, seeking a review of the decision of the Appointed Officer, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that: Item 3 Page 5
Page 6
The proposal is contrary to policies 1, 2, 10 and 22 of the National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 and EP12 of the Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP) 2020 for the following reasons:- • The proposal is located on a site that is at risk of coastal flooding as identified via the future SEPA flood maps and the redevelopment of this site from a bar to holiday accommodation where people are sleeping overnight is an increase in land use vulnerability as there is an increase to people from coastal flood risk therefore is contrary to NPF policies 10, 22 and MLDP policy EP12. • The proposed development has no safe access and egress from the development in a flood event due to the public road used to access the site also being at flood risk therefore is it unacceptable under NPF policy 22. • The proposal does not adapt to the future impacts of climate change (coastal flooding) therefore it is contrary to NPF policies 1 and 2. A Summary of Information Report set out the reasons for refusal, together with the documents considered or prepared by the Appointed Officer in respect of the planning application, in addition to the Notice of Review, Grounds for Review and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. In response to a question from the Chair as to whether the Legal or Planning Advisers had any preliminary matters to raise, Mrs Scott, Legal Adviser advised that she had nothing to raise at this time. Mrs MacDonald, Planning Adviser advised that there is an extant objection from SEPA on this application and, should the Moray Local Review Body (MLRB) be minded to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, it would have to be referred for consideration by the Scottish Ministers. This was noted. The Chair then asked the MLRB if it had sufficient information to determine the request for review. In response, the MLRB unanimously agreed that it had sufficient information to determine the case. Councillor McBain, having visited the site and considered the case in detail, moved that the MLRB uphold the appeal and grant planning permission in respect of Planning Application 23/00976/APP as, in his opinion, the proposal was an acceptable departure from NPF4 policies 1 (Tackling the Climate), 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation), 10 (Coastal Development) and 22 (Flood Risk) and policy EP12 (Management and Enhancement Water) of the MLDP 2020 as the road would act as a flood barrier and stop the caravan park flooding. He further noted that the proposal was to convert a derelict building that had been empty for many years and welcomed the proposal to bring it back into use. This was seconded by Councillor Dunbar. Mrs Scott, Legal Adviser reiterated that, if the MLRB was minded to uphold the appeal that it could not grant planning permission as the case would have to be referred to the Scottish Ministers for consideration given the extant SEPA objection so any motion to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission would be subject to consideration by the Scottish Ministers. This was noted. Councillor Harris raised concern in relation to climate change and the impact this is having on coastal areas and stated that she was of the understanding that the Page 6
Page 7
possibility of flooding was a medium risk and moved that the MLRB dismiss the appeal and uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer to refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 23/00976/APP. This was seconded by Councillor Warren. Mrs MacDonald, Planning Adviser advised that, should the MLRB be minded to grant planning permission then there would usually be a condition to ensure that the use is for a holiday let and further advised that the Transportation Service had recommended a condition in relation to turning and parking at the development. In response, Councillors McBain and Dunbar agreed to include these conditions in their motion. On a division there voted: For the Motion (3): Councillors McBain, Dunbar and Macrae For the Amendment (3): Councillors Harris, Warren and Keith Abstentions (0): Nil There being an equality of votes and in terms of Standing Order 66(c), the Chair cast his casting vote in favour of the motion and the Committee agreed to refer the application to the Scottish Ministers stating that the MLRB are minded to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission in respect of Planning Application 23/00976/APP as the proposal is considered to be an acceptable departure from NPF4 policies 1 (Tackling the Climate), 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation), 10 (Coastal Development) and 22 (Flood Risk) and policy EP12 (Management and Enhancement Water) of the MLDP 2020, as the road would act as a flood barrier and stop the caravan park flooding and the proposal would bring a derelict building that had been empty for many years back into use, subject to the following conditions and reasons: 1. The units hereby approved shall be used for holiday/short term letting purposes only and shall not be used as the sole or main place of residence of any occupant; a holiday being defined as a stay of one or more nights by a person or persons away from that person or persons sole or main place of residence unless otherwise agreed with this Council as Planning Authority and shall not be occupied by the same person or persons for more than 4 months in any calendar year( Any such period shall not run consecutively to such a period in any successive or preceding year). Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to ensure that the unit is used for the purpose applied and upon which its planning merits have been assessed. 2. Parking shall be the following: • 3 car parking spaces retained for the old schoolhouse • 2 car parking spaces for each new apartment • 3 car parking spaces retained for the existing site reception The parking spaces shall be demarked on site in accordance with submitted drawing reference “0621.2417.05B” and made available for use prior to the Page 7
Page 8
first occupation of the first apartment, and thereafter be retained within the site throughout the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the level of parking necessary for residents/visitors/others in the interests of an acceptable development and road safety. 3. A turning area shall be retained within the curtilage of the site to enable vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear. Reason: To ensure the provision for vehicles to enter/exit in a forward gear in the interests of the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road. 5 LR298 - Ward 4 - Fochabers Lhanbryde Planning Application 23/01062/APP – Change of use of open land to private garden at 2 Duke Street, Portgordon, Buckie, Moray A request was submitted by the Applicant, seeking a review of the decision of the Appointed Officer, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that: The proposed change of use of an area of Open Space to domestic garden ground is contrary to the Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP) 2020 and National Planning Framework 4 for the following reasons: 1. The proposals would result in the loss of an area of identified as Open Space under ENV5 within the Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP) 2020 which would fail to comply with MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP5. 2. The ENV5 Green Corridor forms part of the old railway/cycle path corridor which contributes to the setting and character of Portgordon and helps to connect the cycle path into the village centre. The location also provides amenity to the village hall opposite. Whilst the site makes up a small part of the green corridor, piecemeal erosion can negatively impact on the quality and character of the ENV and the role it plays in the setting of Portgordon and wider green networks and therefore the proposals would also fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 20 as the overall integrity of the green network would be fragmented. 3. The Tree Survey Report has not been updated to show the location of the rerouted footpath which would now go between the trees and an Arboricultural Method Statement has not been submitted which would set out how construction will minimise impacts on tree roots. As a result, MLDP 2020 Policy EP7 has not been complied with as additional information is required to confirm that the trees would be safeguarded from the impact of the construction of the path. A Summary of Information Report set out the reasons for refusal, together with the documents considered or prepared by the Appointed Officer in respect of the planning application, in addition to the Notice of Review, Grounds for Review and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. Page 8
Page 9
In response to a question from the Chair as to whether the Legal or Planning Advisers had any preliminary matters to raise, Mr Miller, Planning Adviser advised that he had nothing to raise at this time. Mrs Scott, Legal Adviser advised that the Applicant had emailed the members of the Moray Local Review Body (MLRB) outwith the statutory time period and that the MLRB had been advised to disregard the email and Applicant had been made aware of this. This was noted. The Chair then asked the MLRB if it had sufficient information to determine the request for review. In response, the MLRB unanimously agreed that it had sufficient information to determine the case. The Chair, having considered the Case in detail moved that the MLRB uphold the appeal and grant planning permission in respect of Planning Application 23/01062/APP as, in his opinion, the proposal is an acceptable departure from MLDP policies DP1 (Development Principles), EP5 (Open Space), EP7 (Forestry Woodland and Trees) and NPF4 policy 20 (blue and green infrastructure) as the proposal is to use the land as a garden which would maintain the green space and is in keeping with the current designation of the land, subject to a condition to extend the current footpath adjacent to Duke Street to meet the new footpath. In response, Mr Miller advised that, should the MLRB agree to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, a suspensive condition could be added to ensure that the current footpath is extended to meet the new footpath in accordance with details to be agreed with the Transportation Service. He further advised that the Transportation Service had recommended 3 conditions, should planning permission be granted, and sought clarification whether the Chair's motion would include the 3 recommendations from Transportation. The Chair agreed to include the recommendations from Transportation in his motion. Councillor Harris queried whether there could be an assurance that, should the MLRB uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, the land be solely used as garden ground and not for an extension to the property. In response, Mr Miller, Planning Adviser advised that, if the MLRB were minded to grant planning permission, then a condition could be added to revoke permitted development rights to ensure no structures are erected, including extension(s) to the house, that may erode the visual appearance of the extended garden area. The Chair stated that he was content to include a condition in his motion to revoke permitted development rights to ensure the land is used as garden ground, in addition to the 3 recommended from the Transportation Service and the suspensive condition in relation to the extension of the footpath completed to an acceptable standard for future adoption by the Council for maintenance and asked if there was anyone otherwise minded. There being no-one otherwise minded, the MLRB agreed to grant planning permission in respect of Planning Application 23/01062/APP as an acceptable departure from MLDP 2020 policies DP1 (Development Principles) and EP5 (Open Space) on the basis the visual appearance of the extended garden ground would not erode the function of the open space designation ENV5. Subsequently, the proposal is an acceptable departure from NPF4 policy 20 (blue and green Page 9
Page 10
infrastructure). The proposal is also in compliance with policy EP7 (Forestry Woodland and Trees) in that the proposal will not adversely impact on the integrity of the two trees adjacent to the site. This is subject to the following conditions and reasons: 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted. Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. 2. No development shall commence until a drawing (scale 1:500) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority showing the provision of a re- located private 1.2m wide (whin dust) footpath diverted around the proposed new site boundary, along with the provision of new 1.2m wide public footway along the southern edge of the U109L Duke Street, thereby extending the existing pubic footway to connect with the northern end of the re-located private footpath (approximate distance of 13m); and thereafter the new public footway and private footpath shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the erection of the new site boundary. Reason: To ensure acceptable development in the interests of road safety. 3. New boundary walls/fences fronting onto Duke Street shall be set back from the edge of the public carriageway at a minimum distance of 2.0m. Reason: To ensure acceptable development in the interests of road safety. 4. The opening path of the new access gate shall be fully contained within the site and not encroach onto the public verge. Reason: To ensure acceptable development that does not create any hazard to road users in the interests of road safety. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended, revoked or re-enacted; with or without modification), the erection of any outbuilding, structures, creation of hardstanding for parking of vehicles or extension to the property of 2 Duke Street, Portgordon, AB56 5RH shall not be permitted in the site hereby approved to be incorporated into the curtilage of said property without the consent of the Council, as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Page 10
Page 11
MORAY LOCAL REVIEW BODY 14 MARCH 2024 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FOR CASE No LR299 Planning Application 23/01371/APP – Retrospective consent to convert part of garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent, Elgin Ward 6 – Elgin City North Planning permission was refused under the Statutory Scheme of Delegation by the Appointed Officer on 31 October 2024 on the grounds that: The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan because: (i) The salon as a class 1 (shop use) is an incompatible use within a residential property. (ii) The salon within the private residential property is incompatible with the residential area, and, the traffic movements with their associated noise and disturbance would have a significant adverse impact on the character and residential amenity of the surrounding residential properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to NPF Policies 16 b) and 14 c) and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 (i) a) and PP2 of the Development Plan. Documents considered or prepared by the Appointed Officer in respect of the above planning application are attached as Appendix 1. The Notice of the Review, Grounds for Review and any supporting documents submitted by the Applicant are attached as Appendix 2. Further Representations received in response to the Notice of Review are attached as Appendix 3. The Applicant’s response to Further Representations is attached as Appendix 4. Item 4 Page 11
Page 12
Page 12
Page 13
Spynie Dental Centre DUFFUS CRESCENT COVESEA WEST ROAD 1 12 40 28 14 18 16 2 8 13 27 4 Path DUFFUS LANE 9 2 2 1 14 2 8 Location plan for Planning Application Reference Number : 23/01371/APP This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (c) Crown Copyright. The Moray Council 100023422 2024 Page 13
Page 14
Page 14
Page 15
APPENDIX 1 DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED OR PREPARED BY THE APPOINTED OFFICER Page 15
Page 16
Page 16
Page 17
Page 17
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
Page 20
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
Consultation Request Notification Planning Authority Name Moray Council Response Date 5th September 2023 Planning Authority Reference 23/01371/APP Nature of Proposal (Description) Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Site 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Site Postcode N/A Site Gazetteer UPRN 000133061210 Proposal Location Easting 320636 Proposal Location Northing 864046 Area of application site (M2) Additional Comment Development Hierarchy Level LOCAL Supporting Documentation URL https://publicaccess.moray.gov.uk/eplanning/ce ntralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&ke yVal=RZFIFKBG0CQ00 Previous Application Date of Consultation 22nd August 2023 Is this a re-consultation of an existing application? No Applicant Name Mr And Mrs Ryann Ferguson Applicant Organisation Name Applicant Address 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Agent Name Agent Organisation Name Agent Address Agent Phone Number Agent Email Address N/A Case Officer Shona Strachan Case Officer Phone number 01343 563303 Case Officer email address shona.strachan@moray.gov.uk PA Response To consultation.planning@moray.gov.uk NOTE: If you do not respond by the response date, it will be assumed that you have no comment to make. The statutory period allowed for a consultation response is 14 days. Due to scheduling Page 27
Page 28
pressures if a definitive response is not received within 21 days this may well cause the two month determination period to be exceeded. Data Protection - Moray Council is the data controller for this process. Information collected about you on this form will be used to process your Planning Application, and the Council has a duty to process your information fairly. Information we hold must be accurate, up to date, is kept only for as long as is necessary and is otherwise shared only where we are legally obliged to do so. You have a legal right to obtain details of the information that we hold about you. For full terms please visit http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_121513.html For full Data Protection policy, information and rights please see http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_119859.html You can contact our Data Protection Officer at info@moray.gov.uk or 01343 562633 for more information. Please respond using the attached form:- Page 28
Page 29
MORAY COUNCIL PLANNING CONSULTATION RESPONSE From: Environmental Health Manager Planning Application Ref. No: 23/01371/APP Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY for Mr And Mrs Ryann Ferguson I have the following comments to make on the application:- Please x (a) I OBJECT to the application for the reason(s) as stated below (b) I have NO OBJECTIONS to the application and have no condition(s) and/or comment(s) to make on the proposal (c) I have NO OBJECTIONS to the application subject to condition(s) and/or comment(s) about the proposal as set out below × (d) Further information is required in order to consider the application as set out below Reason(s) for objection Condition(s) Further comment(s) to be passed to applicant Informative: The premises will require to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Further information required to consider the application Contact: Julia McDonald Date……05/09/23…………………….. email address: Phone No …………………………….. Consultee: Return response to consultation.planning@moray.gov.uk Page 29
Page 30
Please note that information about the application including consultation responses and representations (whether in support or objection) received on the proposal will be published on the Council’s website at http://publicaccess.moray.gov.uk/eplanning/ (You can also use this site to track progress of the application and view details of any consultation responses and representations (whether in support or objection) received on the proposal). In order to comply with the Data Protection Act, personal information including signatures, personal telephone and email details will be removed prior to publication using “redaction” software to avoid (or mask) the display of such information. Where appropriate other “sensitive” information within documents will also be removed prior to publication online. Page 30
Page 31
Consultation Request Notification Planning Authority Name Moray Council Response Date 5th September 2023 Planning Authority Reference 23/01371/APP Nature of Proposal (Description) Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Site 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Site Postcode N/A Site Gazetteer UPRN 000133061210 Proposal Location Easting 320636 Proposal Location Northing 864046 Area of application site (M2) Additional Comment Development Hierarchy Level LOCAL Supporting Documentation URL https://publicaccess.moray.gov.uk/eplanning/ce ntralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&ke yVal=RZFIFKBG0CQ00 Previous Application Date of Consultation 22nd August 2023 Is this a re-consultation of an existing application? No Applicant Name Mr And Mrs Ryann Ferguson Applicant Organisation Name Applicant Address 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Agent Name Agent Organisation Name Agent Address Agent Phone Number Agent Email Address N/A Case Officer Shona Strachan Case Officer Phone number 01343 563303 Case Officer email address shona.strachan@moray.gov.uk PA Response To consultation.planning@moray.gov.uk NOTE: If you do not respond by the response date, it will be assumed that you have no comment to make. The statutory period allowed for a consultation response is 14 days. Due to scheduling Page 31
Page 32
pressures if a definitive response is not received within 21 days this may well cause the two month determination period to be exceeded. Data Protection - Moray Council is the data controller for this process. Information collected about you on this form will be used to process your Planning Application, and the Council has a duty to process your information fairly. Information we hold must be accurate, up to date, is kept only for as long as is necessary and is otherwise shared only where we are legally obliged to do so. You have a legal right to obtain details of the information that we hold about you. For full terms please visit http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_121513.html For full Data Protection policy, information and rights please see http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_119859.html You can contact our Data Protection Officer at info@moray.gov.uk or 01343 562633 for more information. Please respond using the attached form:- Page 32
Page 33
MORAY COUNCIL PLANNING CONSULTATION RESPONSE From: Transportation Manager Planning Application Ref. No: 23/01371/APP Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY for Mr And Mrs Ryann Ferguson I have the following comments to make on the application:- Please (a) I OBJECT to the application for the reason(s) as stated below (b) I have NO OBJECTIONS to the application and have no condition(s) and/or comment(s) to make on the proposal (c) I have NO OBJECTIONS to the application subject to condition(s) and/or comment(s) about the proposal as set out below x (d) Further information is required in order to consider the application as set out below This proposal is for the retrospective consent to convert an existing domestic single garage to a hair salon. The supporting information confirms that only one customer will be present at any given time, and with a gap between appointments provided to ensure that one customer leaves before the following one arrives. The salon is also to have a maximum of three customers per day and operate three days per week. No additional staff (other than the resident) is proposed. Based on Moray Council parking standards the property requires three parking spaces, plus one for the visiting customer. The loss of the garage has resulted in the loss of one of the existing spaces, and the driveway also contains a ramped access which further reduces the presently available parking area. However as part of this proposal the existing driveway is to be reconfigured with the removal of the ramped access and the widening of the driveway to the full width of the property frontage in lock block, thereby providing four parking spaces. On the basis that the proposal is retrospective in nature the following conditions would apply: Condition(s) 1. Within six months of the date of this decision notice the existing driveway shall be reconfigured and extended to provide four car parking spaces. The car parking spaces shall thereafter be retained within the site throughout the lifetime of the development for use by residents and customers, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority. Page 33
Page 34
Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the level of parking necessary for residents/visitors/customers in the interests of an acceptable development and road safety. 2. No water shall be permitted to drain or loose material be carried onto the public footway/carriageway. Reason: To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road and access to the site by minimising the road safety impact from extraneous material and surface water in the vicinity of the access Further comment(s) to be passed to applicant Planning consent does not carry with it the right to carry out works within the public road boundary. The applicant should note that the short section of (shared) road serving the site is private and is not adopted by the Roads Authority. Public utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal. Contact the appropriate utility service in respect of any necessary utility service alterations which have to be carried out at the expense of the developer. No building materials/scaffolding/builder’s skip shall obstruct the public road (including footpaths) without permission from the Roads Authority. Contact: AG Date 05 September 2023 email address: transport.develop@moray.gov.uk Consultee: TRANSPORTATION Return response to consultation.planning@moray.gov.uk Please note that information about the application including consultation responses and representations (whether in support or objection) received on the proposal will be published on the Council’s website at http://publicaccess.moray.gov.uk/eplanning/ (You can also use this site to track progress of the application and view details of any consultation responses and representations (whether in support or objection) received on the proposal). In order to comply with the Data Protection Act, personal information including signatures, personal telephone and email details will be removed prior to publication using “redaction” software to avoid (or mask) the display of such information. Where appropriate other “sensitive” information within documents will also be removed prior to publication online. Page 34
Page 35
Consultee Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Consultee Details Name: Mr CL Consultations Address: Environmental Health, Council Offices, High Street Elgin, Moray IV30 1BX Email: Not Available On Behalf Of: Contaminated Land Comments Approved unconditionally - Adrian Muscutt Page 35
Page 36
Page 36
Page 37
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: is causing me no issues at all. I haven't noticed any increase in traffic or excess noise. the conversion is in keeping with the home & without knowing it was there I wouldn't have noticed there was a business inside. Page 37
Page 38
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:As another property owner in Hamilton Gardens, I fully support this application. It will not bring anything negative to the neighbourhood and the applicants are considerate, modest, hard working people. The salon is a positive attribute to the community in Hamilton Gardens and is great to be in walking distance to many. Page 38
Page 39
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:These applicants are really lovely people. They will not cause a nuisance by having the salon at the property. It is good to have a salon on the estate to serve the growing community who live here. Page 39
Page 40
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The conversion has been done really sympathetically and fits in with the look of the houses in the street. There is no problem with increased traffic on the road and it is lovely to have a local business so close which we can support. Page 40
Page 41
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The house has be converted in a discreet manor and looks appealing to the eye. No increase in traffic or obstructing parking has been witnessed. In this current climate it is a pleasure to see a new business develop. Page 41
Page 42
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:i am very supportive of M rand Mrs Fergusson's application for the hair salon in their property. it has been renovated to a very high standard with no detrimental effect to the estate. from traffic or large numbers of clients . They have always s been respectful of other neighbours . Considering this is a large estate and many people in the estate have work vans as well as private cars which are often parked outwith their driveway i have had no such issue with the Fergissons . I wish them all the success and certainly a positive addition to our estate. Page 42
Page 43
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I am full support of the salon opening. I can walk to and leave the car. More flexibility around haircuts especially being on my own with 2 kids. A better work life balance for Rebecca and her young family. A lot of Rebecca's clients are from the Bishopmill her being a parent at the local primary. This means a lot more people can walk and leave there car therefore less traffic on the road in an already conjested elgin Page 43
Page 44
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Very nice to have a local business in walking distance, I fully support Rebecca's application and with it being a small business I see no problem with parking as Rebecca's drive is big enough to hold an extra vehicle, my family have known Rebecca and her family for a number of years and consider them valuable members of the community. Page 44
Page 45
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Mrs Ferguson provides a welcome service to the local community with her hair dressing service, and I fully support her planning application for a hair salon. Embracing the working from home ethic, Mrs Ferguson offers a warm and friendly atmosphere for her customers, and the geographical location allows easy walking access for residents within the Hamilton gardens, from surrounding estates, and from the local bus stop. For the few that may need to use a car, off street parking is provided by utilising Mrs Ferguson's driveway. However, since the business is a sole proprietorship that caters for only one customer at a time, extra vehicles parked on the estate is not currently an issue and is unlikely to become so in the future. Similarly, there has been no noticeable increase in local traffic flow, or noise, this is also unlikely to become a future issue. The conversion of Mrs Ferguson's garage (part of) to a hair salon has been carried out professionally and with due regard for the surrounding neighbourhood, it is in keeping with the remainder of the property, and externally gives no indication of its purpose. Indeed, it is similar in appearance to other conversions on the estate. With the current cost of living and climate issues, running a business from home is sensible, keeping costs low for the owner, and the customer. Furthermore, the need for vehicle use by either party is reduced. Moreover, by providing the service locally, Mrs Ferguson's business serves to boost the social fabric and economic growth of the community. In summary, Mrs Ferguson's hair salon provides a valuable service to the local community that can only have a positive impact on the people of Hamilton Gardens, with negligible environmental impact. As a neighbour, I fully support Mrs Ferguson's planning application and wish her every success for the future. Page 45
Page 46
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:We fully support Rebecca with her new venture. Having salon at the door step would be amazing and very handy for us as a family therefore we have no objections towards this project:) Page 46
Page 47
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: Page 47
Page 48
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I support this small business and the owners doing their best for themselves and their family and the local area Page 48
Page 49
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:It will be good and convenient to have small hair saloon nearby. Certainly, I would like to use this service. I would like to support this application and development of that small business in the neighbourhood. Page 49
Page 50
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Very convenient to be able to walk here to get my hair done in this lovely salon. Page 50
Page 51
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Parking - Road access - Road safety - Traffic Comment:I am concerned about parking at the premises as the street is already congested at times. It is also in our house deeds that no business should be allowed from our properties at Hamilton Gardens. Page 51
Page 52
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I believe this a brilliant idea and look forward to supporting Rebecca and her business! Support mums working from home! Page 52
Page 53
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Activity at unsociable hours/behaviour - Contrary to Local Plan - Legal issues - Loss of privacy (being overlooked) - Noise - Over-development of site - Parking - Permitted Development - Road access - Road safety - Traffic Comment:I'm writing this as I would like to object to the retrospective plans 23/01371/APP submitted by Mr and Mrs Ferguson of 22 Duffus crescent, Elgin, Moray IV30 5PY. My objection is based on the increased traffic this would cause and the unfamiliar faces constantly frequenting the green area that is situated between our two properties that my children frequently play on. This is a great little spot for the children that many of the children of the area play on. It also offers an aesthetically positive view from our house. It is up kept within the coverage of the private factoring fee that each resident of the estate pays. I bought our property over 12 years ago signing the deeds that stipulate that the said properties are solely for residential uses and strictly no business or trade use. I was comfortable in the assurance that it was an area with respite/detached from business, commerce and industry. With a safe environment at the front of us ideal for the children with minimal residential traffic flow. Having a salon opposite would most definitely impact these aspects and create an elevated risk to our children. This planning was not brought to our attention previous to their development of salon. Thus we have been able to witness the negative impact of increased persons/customers coming Page 53
Page 54
and going outwith the time that is stated in these plans (9pm-3pm 3days a week) which is quite clearly a smoke screen from my view point. I believe the planning of a car park at the front of the said property indicates the volume of customers they are intending to accommodate. Increased traffic and increased footfall to the property is a definite invasion of "the right to peaceful enjoyment" of property and "respect for private and family life" Human rights act 1998 Protocol 1, article 1 and 8 respectively. I hope this email impresses upon you my objection to this retrospective planning of the said property. Page 54
Page 55
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:It is convenient to have a hair salon in the estate; and small, local businesses should always be encouraged and supported. Given the nature of the business, I can't foresee this causing any issues for the immediate surrounding area or the housing estate in general - be that noise, congestion, parking issues or anything that would be detrimental. Page 55
Page 56
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I'm in support of this application. It's great to see young people starting their own business given the current economic climate. There shouldn't be any additional disruption to neighbours or traffic on the road given the size of the business. Page 56
Page 57
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:All for small businesses making a success Page 57
Page 58
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: Page 58
Page 59
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I think we should all support small local businesses and this one is ideal as you don't need a car to access the business Page 59
Page 60
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Contrary to Local Plan - Legal issues - Loss of privacy (being overlooked) - Noise - Parking - Procedures not followed correctly - Road access - Road safety - Traffic Comment:I wish to object to planning application 23/01371/APP | Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at | 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY. Reasons for objection are noted below - 1 - Supporting comments already submitted clearly note that clients will be driving and walking to the premises, this worries me greatly in regards to privacy on the street, with our living room window directly overlooking the private access road - customer will will be able to see directly into our property. There will also be increased footfall and cars parked in close proximity to our property. The increase in foot fall and parking issues will have an adverse affect of our peaceful enjoyment of our property - Human Rights Act 1998 - Protocol 1, article 1 - the right to a peaceful enjoyment of property and article 8 respect to private family life. 2 - The conversion of the garage to a salon was one where neighbours were not consulted Page 60
Page 61
beforehand, the noise increase from the conversion and the fact we were unable to use our private access road for nearly 2 weeks was less than satisfactory to say the least. There was blatant disregard to neighbours privacy and right to peace during the whole process. 3 - Parking on the private access road and surrounding roads has already been a point of frustration and conflict by neighbours in close proximity and I cannot see this would improve by allowing the salon to stay open. I have seen on several occasions clients of the applicant blocking access to properties who border the private access road. In the report from the transport manager it states - Within six months of the date of this decision notice the existing driveway shall be reconfigured and extended to provide four car parking spaces. The car parking spaces shall thereafter be retained within the site throughout the lifetime of the development for use by residents and customers, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority. I believe this is in direct conflict with Moray Councils Local Development Plan - Car Parking must not dominate the street scene, also a maximum of 50% of car parking within the front curtilage will be permitted, subject to the visual impact of the cars being mitigated by an acceptable boundary treatments such as hedging or low stone boundary walls. With Mr & Mrs Fergusson wishing to turn 100 percent of the area of land to the front of their property into parking - I believe this to be in direct conflict to the above noted. The report also notes that the disabled access will be removed to make way to 4 car parking spaces, there is no mention of any other disabled access being made available or to replace the one that is being removed. This will be in direct violation of the Equality Act 2010 - Under the Equality Act employers and organisations have a responsibility to make sure that disabled people can access jobs, education and services as easily as non-disabled people A person (a "service-provider") concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service. 4 - As a neighbour/property owner bordering the private access road and financially responsible Page 61
Page 62
for all repairs (us being 1 of 5 property owners) , opening of the salon will not only have an impact on our privacy and family life but will also affect us financially, with all the increased foot fall and car usage on the road, this will no doubt result in repairs and up keep needed having a direct financial impact on us, I believe that Mr and Mrs Fergusson should have legally looked into this matter beforehand, it also clearly states in the title deeds for their property and indeed neighbouring properties that owners/residents are not allowed to run a business from their property. The applicants have clearly not followed any of the procedures and have complete disregard to any of the local policies put in place to safe guard neighbours in the development. 5 - The level of activity associated with the change of use would be out of keeping of the residential area and would impact adversely on our family life and our property and gives unacceptable overbearing loss of amenity, in terms of privacy, noise and parking on the private access road I refer to MLDP 2020 DP1 section e - Proposal must not adversely impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, daylight or overbearing loss of amenity. 6 - 1 client at a time, 3 clients a day, who will be monitoring these numbers, who is to Stop Mrs Fergusson from booking in more clients or having large group bookings. The level of ambiguity this leaves suggests that the salon would be better placed within the town centre where they can contribute to the local economy and not within a local residential area where it will impact on the local residents. Page 62
Page 63
Page 63
Page 64
Page 64
Page 65
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I have no objections and give my support to the planning application. Rational: * The conversion of the garage to a salon has not detracted from the aesthetics of the building but enhanced it in keeping with the surrounding buildings. *The salon is tastefully decorated to accommodate only one client per session in a very private, relaxing environment. * The salon is ideally situated within walking distance for me and if needed, a bus service runs past Duffus Heights houly during working hours. * This young, entrepreneur mother of three young children should be supported and encouraged to promote a good standard of work ethics to help become self reliant, particularly in the cost of general living standards we find ourselves in. Page 65
Page 66
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: Page 66
Page 67
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I would like make a comment in support of this conversion of garage to hair salon. I'm am a neighbour living on the estate and find the salon to be very convenient. It is a useful location for those on the estate and is walking distance for many meaning very little added traffic. The salon offers a valuable service to those who work from home or work unusual hours. The work has been done to a very high standard and appears to be in keeping with other houses on the estate. Page 67
Page 68
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: Page 68
Page 69
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Within walking distance. Beautiful business and are respectful neighbour's Page 69
Page 70
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: Page 70
Page 71
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I have been a customer for several years at a previous salon. The addition of this salon is a terrific example of someone being entrepreneurial, providing a flexible service for customers in the local area. The fixtures and fittings are of high quality, and it is well decorated and appointed. The applicant is considerate to her neighbours asking me to walk to my appointment and not park on her street. Page 71
Page 72
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I have been a regular customer for years. This new business location is a fantastic opportunity and high quality service to have here in our development. It is in walking distance from our home, which means my family can walk, which cuts down on using our car, therefore sustainable travel. This business is very accessible for wheelchair users, or customers with limited mobility. The building itself is of a very high quality, fixtures and fittings. It is very comfortable and is extremely welcoming indeed. Page 72
Page 73
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I think it's great if someone can start a business from home. I would always support this, especially a mum with 3 children. Anyone who has a problem with this should just mind their own business as it's not affecting their lives. Page 73
Page 74
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: Page 74
Page 75
Comments for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Application Summary Application Number: 23/01371/APP Address: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Proposal: Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at Case Officer: Shona Strachan Customer Details Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I fully support this conversion. I don't see how it could have any negative impact on surrounding houses as Rebecca will only have one client at a time and therefore I have no reason to object. Personally I feel that hard working families should be supported rather than torn down. Page 75
Page 76
Responses by Mr and Mrs Ferguson re Planning Application Number 23/01371/APP Objections from 10th September 1. No visitors to 22 Duffus Crescent have any interest in invading the privacy of the neighbour’s to the property. The development is a large housing development with residents, visitors, trades people, delivery persons etc always driving and walking around. Mrs Ferguson’s clients are long established and well known to her with the sole intention of attending their hair appointment. 2. Any construction works at a property causes temporary disruption and inconvenience to the neighbours and we consciously made attempts to be considerate to our neighbours by ensuring the tradesmen were able to park within the driveway of 22 Duffus Crescent. We parked our own car at a neighbours’ house, who offered the use of their drive whilst they were on holiday. The use of the private access road was always clear and never blocked. The tradesmen were not on site for a full 2 weeks, they completed the works timeously ensuring that they were considerate to the neighbours by sticking to hours between 8am and 4pm. 3. In order to alleviate any onward issues with parking at the property, we already have plans and permission for provision of 4 car parking spaces in our driveway. We have taken this decision to accommodate our own family vehicle, work van and then to have adequate space for a visiting vehicle. Most houses in current times have at least 2 vehicles to any family home. In addition, some families have more than this, if older children who live at home also have their own car. 22 Duffus Crescent already consists of only driveway at the front of the property, there is no grassed area or flowerbed. The driveway is just going to be reconfigured to allow for 4 spaces, of which disabled access will remain, giving no value to the comment regarding violation of the Equity Act 2010. 4. The increased footfall and car usage on the access road and path will in no way incur any financial loss to any of the neighbours. Having 1-3 clients a day for 3 days a week is no different to a normal family home receiving visitors albeit friends, relatives, postal deliveries, milk deliveries, cleaner, gardeners and other service providers. Each of the 5 proprietors has a right of access to their own property and for anyone visiting their home, there is no reference it the maintenance obligation as to how many visitors are permitted per home per day. If this was the case, all visitors regardless of nature,would have to be restricted to each household responsible for the maintenance, which is wholly unrealistic. Page 76
Page 77
Given wehave only lived at 22Duffus Crescent for a year, weare already 10 years plus behind any usage of the road that the other 4 properties have enjoyed. As far as we are aware there has been no requirement for any upkeep or maintenance of the access road and pathway since construction. The access road is of the same road surface material as the main roads through the development, which are all used on a daily basis for a much higher volume of traffic than the access road and therefore we do not anticipate the extra visitors to our property to affect the condition of the road. Regarding the running of a business from 22 Duffus Crescent, prior to deciding to proceed with the salon, we were already aware of numerous businesses that run from the home of the proprietors in this development, namely:- a taxi firm, accountant, dog grooming, Air B & B’s, beauticians, car cleaning, music teacher, Executive travel, crafters, driving instructor, jeweller. There are also many proprietors who sell personal items on local selling sites which results in strangers visiting the homes to collect such items. As far as we are aware the only enforceability of this title burden is that of neighbours who can prove the natureof the business has caused detriment to the valueor enjoyment of their property. To prove this, a property surveyor would require to value the neighbours’ properties and advise whether the salon at number 22 Duffus Crescent has resulted in a devalue of their properties. If anything, we would consider the addition of the extra room at 22 Duffus Crescent to increase the value of the surrounding properties, as if 22 Duffus Crescent was to be marketed for sale, the extra room could be converted to a study/office/snug/playroom and this would likely be valued higher than it would without the additional room, thus increasing the average house price on the street. As far as the salon causing the neighbours detriment to the enjoyment of their property, Mrs Ferguson’s intended working hours are during school hours, 9am – 3pm when most neighbours are out themselves at work and therefore unaware of anyone attending at 22 Duffus Crescent. Receiving clients to the property for their hair appointments is no different to us having a friend or relative visit and therefore could not be proved to have caused the neighbours any detriment to being able to enjoy their own properties. 5. There is no loss of daylight to the neighbours, given the alterations are internal and no external changes have been made to the property, other than the installation of a window, As mentioned above, the level of activity in minimal and no different to having a friend, relative or neighbour visit at 22 Duffus Crescent. 6. Mrs Ferguson works alone at the salon is only able to accommodate one client at any one time. She will be working within school hours around her young family, the youngest of which Page 77
Page 78
is only 2, so will be unable to increase her working hours or availability due to her family commitments. The costs associated with running a small business and renting a premises for use during the restricted part time hours Mrs Ferguson can commit to means it is not viable to rent a premises or be part of an existing salon. Having the salon at home means that she can walk her children to school which is better for the environment and reducesfuelcostsof taking the car to a premises away from our home. Mr Ferguson works long hours, so Mrs Ferguson is the primary carer of our 3 young children. The children participate in a number of after school activities and are part of sport clubs which takes up Mrs Ferguson’s time after school and at weekends. There is no scope for her availability to increase, given the commitments of the children. Mrs Ferguson walks her children to and from school and is seen every day by her neighbours before and afterschool, so they are fully aware that she is not in the salon working after 3pm. Responses to objection dated 8th September 1. We applied for a Building Warrant for change of use and the drawing technician we used advised us that we would not require planning permission. The builder we had consulted to carry out the works at our property had a last minute cancellation and we were given the opportunity to proceed with the alterations and had to make a quick decision to proceed. We have now taken steps to rectify the lack of Planning Permission by applying for Retrospective Planning Consent. As noted in the earlier responses, the construction works may have caused the immediate neighbours slight inconvenience, but as already mentioned, any building works at a property will create noise and disruption, but this was kept to a minimum and is now completed, so has no ongoing impact to the neighbouring properties as a result of the salon now being complete. 2. Response as noted above at point 4 regarding properties being used for business use. 3. Response as noted above at points 3 and 4 – in addition – Mrs Ferguson specifically messaged her clients to request that they approach ourproperty via the road which passes number and leave thisway also to restrict any inconvenience to the Page 78
Page 79
neighbours at number as the neighbour at number have no concerns regarding the salon or the clients passing their property. (add photo) 4. What evidence is there to prove the hours that Mrs Ferguson has been working? Mrs Ferguson has kept her appointment book completely up to date with all clients times and dates of appointments and with the backup of the ring doorbell camera, can prove the times clients have attended at the property. The screenshot of the opening times has been taken from a social media page. The ‘Always open’ reference refers to the social media page and not the physical salon business. Mrs Ferguson’s social media page can receive messages at any time, but the salon is clearly not open 24/7. Having 3 young children, Mrs Ferguson does not attend to clients in the salon in the evenings. Assumptions have been made due to the lights being on in the salon during the evening, but we are at liberty to have lights on in any room in our home without justification to our neighbours. As noted above, the amount of clients attending at the salon are no different to friends or relatives visiting our family and by no means causes danger to the children playing outside, given the times of opening are during school hours, when children are not out playing and also given ourown children play on the green area mentioned, the safety of ourownchildren is paramount and we would never put them at risk or in danger from operating the salon in our home. Having 340 followers on a social media page is no indication of how many customers the Mrs Ferguson has. Social media followers can be friends, colleagues, other hairdressers to name a few. The supportive comments are simply stating that customers can walk to the salon if they live in Hamilton Gardens, which is much more convenient that having to drive into town. The supportive comments are not all from existing customers, they are also from people who know us and are supporting us withthis new venture. Responses to 7th September and 3rd September objections are covered in the above responses. Page 79
Page 80
h Page 80
Page 81
Page 81
Page 82
REPORT OF HANDLING Ref No: 23/01371/APP Officer: Shona Strachan Proposal Description/ Address Retrospective consent to convert of part of garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin Moray IV30 5PY Date: 31.10.2023 Typist Initials: LMC RECOMMENDATION Approve, without or with condition(s) listed below N Refuse, subject to reason(s) listed below Y Legal Agreement required e.g. S,75 N Notification to Scottish Ministers/Historic Scotland N Hearing requirements Departure N Pre-determination N CONSULTATIONS Consultee Date Returned Summary of Response Contaminated Land 01/09/23 No objection. Scottish Water No response at time of report. Environmental Health Manager 06/09/23 No objection subject to a condition which would require the salon to comply with Health and Safety at work Regulations. Transportation Manager 05/09/23 No objection based on a time specific condition which would require the existing drive way to be reconfigured and extended to provide 4 car parking spaces. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY Policies Dep Any Comments (or refer to Observations below) National Planning Framework 2023 NPF26 - Business and industry Y NPF13 - Sustainable transport N NPF14 - Design, quality and place Y Moray Local Development Plan 2020 PP3 Infrastructure and Services N PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth Y DP1 Development Principles Y Page 82
Page 83
Page 2 of 7 REPRESENTATIONS Representations Received YES Total number of representations received: TOTAL = 37: Objections = 5. Comments in support = 32 Names/Addresses of parties submitting representations Name and address details of parties submitting representations withheld in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulations. Summary and Assessment of main issues raised by representations Issue: Comments in Support of the application centred on the following maters: Supporting businesses from home. Service provision within the estate which will offer convenience. High quality design and finish for the conversion. Applicant encourages customers to walk to the salon. Comments (PO): Comments in support are noted. Issue: As a retrospective planning application appropriate planning procedures have not been followed. Comments (PO): Individuals should always seek advice from the Planning Authority prior to undertaking works to ensure that no land use planning breeches occur. In such circumstances "retrospective planning consent" can be sought to seek to regularise any planning breaches as is the case with this application. The purpose of this application is to assess the acceptability of the proposal in planning terms. Issue: Works took place to convert the garage without any prior consultation or conversation with surrounding neighbouring properties. Comments (PO): Aside from any required planning application process, there is no obligation for applicants to seek any consultation/conversation with surrounding properties prior to undertaking alterations to their property. Issue: The works to convert the garage caused disruption and noise impacts upon surrounding properties for a period of two weeks. Comments (PO): Construction works can cause disruption. However, this would not be a material planning reason to refuse the planning application. Issue: The title deeds of the property state that: "No part of any plot, including dwelling house shall be used for the carrying on therein or thereon of any trade, business or profession". Comments (PO): Title deeds are a separate legal matter and not a material planning consideration in the assessment of this planning application. Issue: The increased of people to the property will cause an increase in unfamiliar faces frequenting a small area of green open space which is frequently used by neighbourhood kids and provides a positive view within the street. Comment (PO): The small area of green open space is public open space and is in near proximity to the site but does not fall within it and the salon use will not impinge upon the open space area. Use of this area of public open space by the public is a separate matter from the assessment of this planning application. Page 83
Page 84
Page 3 of 7 Issue: The properties at this location are accessed via a private shared access road. All the property owners who use the access have a financial responsibility towards upkeep and maintenance of the private shared access. The use of this private shared access road by salon users would create an additional burden on the use of this shared access road. In addition, there has been several instances where salon users have blocked the private shared access road causing disruption and obstructing access to the other properties who rely on this access road to get to their properties. Comments (PO): The use and any associated financial contributions towards the private shared access road is a private legal matter and not a material planning consideration in the assessment of this planning application. Issue: The requirement from Transportation to add additional parking to the front of the dwelling to accommodate parking for the dwelling and for the salon use within will effectively turn 100% of the land to the front of the property into car parking which contributors believe is in contravention to MLDP 2020 Policy DP1 (ii) b) which states that car parking must not dominate the street scene and must be provided to the side or rear and behind the building line, with a maximum of 50% car parking to be allowed within the front curtilage. Comments (PO): Based on Moray Council Parking Standards the property requires three parking spaces plus one for the visiting customer. The loss of the garage has resulted in the loss of one of the existing spaces, and the driveway also contains a ramped access which further reduces the presently available parking area. However as part of this proposal the existing driveway is to be reconfigured with the removal of the ramped access and the widening of the driveway to the full width of the property frontage in lock block, thereby providing the required four parking spaces. This parking arrangement is required to ensure onsite parking can be provided for the dwelling and the salon within the confines of the existing house site. The comments in relation to MLDP 2020 DP1 (ii) b) do not apply in this instance as this policy provision applies across the whole street rather than to individual plots so whilst it is acknowledged the requirement would increase the level of parking provided at the front of the property, as an individual plot within the wider street, it is not considered to significantly alter the parking composition across the whole streetscape. Issue: The removal of the existing ramped access to achieve the parking requirement, without replacement disabled access would be in contravention to the Equalities Act 2010. Comment (PO): It is confirmed in the floor plans that a level access will be provided; following internal consultation with Building Standards; it has been confirmed that the specification provided would allow for disabled access provision and that the level access requirements will be checked as part of any Completion Certificate process under Building Regulations. Issue: The application submission states the salon will only be open 9-3 on 3 days a week, for 3 customers, who will be monitoring these numbers, who is to stop the applicant from booking in more clients or having large group/family bookings. The level of ambiguity this leaves suggests that the salon would be better placed within the town centre where they can contribute to the local economy and not within a local residential area where it will impact on the local residents. Comments (PO): Whilst it is recognised that the application proposal is for the salon to be operated 3 days a week between 9am and 3pm with a maximum of 3 customers a day. It is considered that given the creation of a bespoke salon within a private home, it is not possible to practically or effectively enforce any such planning condition which would seeks to restrict the operation of the salon to these hours and numbers. In the absence of such a condition the Planning Authority considers that it is not possible to ensure that the salon would only operate within the hours and numbers specified. This is a significant consideration in this case as the use beyond those hours and numbers identified would run result in movement from cars having a significant adverse impact Page 84
Page 85
Page 4 of 7 on the character and amenity for surrounding residential properties. With this in mind it is acknowledged that the salon use would be more appropriately suited to a town centre or other commercial neighbourhood shops locality. Issue: The increase in visitors to the site will be out of keeping with the residential area and will adversely impact upon the character and amenity of the area and will comprise the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the right to private family life under the Human Rights Act 1998. Comments (PO): Noted - see comments above. OBSERVATIONS – ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL Legislative Framework Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, namely the adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2020 (MLDP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main planning issues are considered below: Proposal and Site Retrospective planning consent is sought to convert part of a garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin. The property is a detached dwelling in a modern residential housing development. The garage which has been converted is an integral feature with the salon occupying the front part of the garage. As part of the changes the garage door has been removed and a large double window has been installed internally the salon has been fitted with a single "back wash" for hair washing etc. The applicant supporting statement advises that the salon will provide the applicant the opportunity to work as a sole operating self-employed hair stylist. The hours of operation are to be 9am-3pm with a maximum of 3 clients per day and a maximum of 3 days per week. Policy Assessment NPF Policy 26 Business and Industry Part b) Development proposals for home working, live work units and micro-businesses will be supported where it is demonstrated that the scale and nature of the proposed business and building will be compatible with the surrounding area and there will be no unacceptable impacts on amenity or neighbouring uses. NPF Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place Part c) Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. MLDP 2020 Policy DP1 Development Principles Policy DP1 (i) a) requires that the scale, density and character of a development must be appropriate to the surrounding area and create a sense of place. Proposals must also not adversely impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, daylight or overbearing loss of amenity. MLDP 2020 Policy PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth Policies PP2 promote sustainable economic growth provided all potential impacts can be successfully mitigated. Page 85
Page 86
Page 5 of 7 In this case, whilst it is recognised that the application proposal is for the salon to be operated 3 days a week, between 9am and 3pm with a maximum of 3 customers a day and these hours and numbers would be commensurate with a part time use. A salon as a class 1 (shop use) is not a typical use ordinarily associated or compatible with residential use. Further, it is considered that given the creation of a bespoke salon within a private home, it is not possible to practically or effectively enforce any such planning condition which would seek to restrict the operation of the salon to the hours, days and numbers of clients identified by the applicant. Therefore, the operation of the salon use with uncontrolled hours, days and numbers of clients would result in traffic movements with associated noise and disturbance which would have a significant adverse impact on the character and residential amenity of the surrounding residential properties. In the submitted response to the objections received, the applicant believes there to be numerous business that run from home within Elgin. However, every proposal is considered on its own merits and it is noted for example that the businesses quoted may themselves not benefit from any required planning consent. Taking account of the above considerations, the salon is incompatible with the residential area and given that the operations of a salon in a private home cannot be controlled by planning condition; it is considered that the traffic movements and their associated noise and disturbance would have a significant adverse impact on the character and residential amenity of the surrounding residential properties. Design Considerations NPF14 and MLDP 2020 DP1 The external alterations associated with the change of use are compatible with the character and appearance of the residential development and in and of themselves do not create any adverse amenity impacts. The proposal meets the design requirements of Policies NPF14 and MLDP 2020 DP1. However, this is separate from the unacceptable use of the salon. Access and Parking NPF13 and MLDP 2020 Policy DP1 & PP3 The Transportation Section has advised that: the short section of shared road serving the site is private and is not adopted by the Roads Authority. No objection has been raised to the development subject to a condition which would require the existing driveway to be reconfigured and extended to provide four car parking spaces within six months of the date of the decision notice to allow sufficient parking for the domestic property and the salon within. It is noted the submitted plans show the driveway being reconfigured and lock blocked to provide this parking. Subject to compliance with the conditions(s) identified the proposal would be acceptable under Policies NPF13 and the access and parking requirements of Policy DP1 and PP3. Recommendation - Refusal OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT None HISTORY Reference No. Description Decision Date Of Decision Page 86
Page 87
Page 6 of 7 ADVERT Advert Fee paid? N/A Local Newspaper Reason for Advert Date of expiry DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (PGU) Status N/A DOCUMENTS, ASSESSMENTS etc. * * Includes Environmental Statement, Appropriate Assessment, Design Statement, Design and Access Statement, RIA, TA, NIA, FRA etc Supporting information submitted with application? YES Summary of main issues raised in each statement/assessment/report Document Name: Statement in Support of the Application Main Issues: The Statement advises that: the converted garage is to be used by the applicant as a salon to provide an opportunity to work as a self-employed hair stylist. The proposed hours of operation are 9am-3pm with a maximum of 3 clients per day and a maximum of 3 days per week. It is confirmed in the statement that the applicant is to be the sole operator of the salon which is suggested means there is to be a maximum of 1 client and 1 car at the property at any one time with clients spaced such that this is adhered to. An extract fan will be fitted to the salon to ensure any odours are extracted with trickle vents on windows for air circulation. Background music would be played within the salon. Document Name: Response from Applicants to Objections Main Issues: The applicants have provided responses to the objections raised from their perspective. S.75 AGREEMENT Application subject to S.75 Agreement NO Summary of terms of agreement: Location where terms or summary of terms can be inspected: Page 87
Page 88
Page 7 of 7 DIRECTION(S) MADE BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS (under DMR2008 Regs) Section 30 Relating to EIA NO Section 31 Requiring planning authority to provide information and restrict grant of planning permission NO Section 32 Requiring planning authority to consider the imposition of planning conditions NO Summary of Direction(s) Page 88
Page 89
Page 89
Page 90
(Page 2 of 3) Ref: 23/01371/APP IMPORTANT YOUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE REASONS and NOTES BELOW SCHEDULE OF REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL By this Notice, Moray Council has REFUSED this proposal. The Council’s reason(s) for this decision are as follows: - The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan because: i) The salon as a class 1 (shop use) is an incompatible use within a residential property. ii) The salon within the private residential property is incompatible with the residential area, and, the traffic movements with their associated noise and disturbance would have a significant adverse impact on the character and residential amenity of the surrounding residential properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to NPF Policies 16 b) and 14 c) and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 (i) a) and PP2 of the Development Plan. LIST OF PLANS AND DRAWINGS SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENT The following plans and drawings form part of the decision:- Reference Version Title RF/01 Elevations and floor plans RF/02 Site location plan NOTICE OF APPEAL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months from the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to The Clerk, Moray Council Local Review Body, Legal and Committee Services, Council Offices, High Street, Elgin IV30 1BX. This form is also available and can be submitted online or downloaded from www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase Page 90
Page 91
(Page 3 of 3) Ref: 23/01371/APP notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land’s interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Page 91
Page 92
Page 92
Page 93
APPENDIX 2 NOTICE OF REVIEW, GROUNDS FOR REVIEW & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Page 93
Page 94
Page 94
Page 95
Page 1 of 5 The Moray Council Council Office High Street Elgin IV30 1BX Tel: 0300 1234561 Email: development.control@moray.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100655606-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Plans Plus Colin Keir Main Street Plans Plus Offices 01343 842635 IV30 8LG Moray By Elgin Urquhart ctkplans@aol.com Page 95
Page 96
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr 22 DUFFUS CRESCENT Ryann Moray Council Ferguson Duffus Crescent 22 ELGIN IV30 5PY IV30 5PY UK 864046 Moray 320636 Elgin ctkplans@aol.com Page 96
Page 97
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Retrospective consent to convert part of garage to hair salon See separate sheet attached Page 97
Page 98
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Original plans Decision notice supporting Review information 23/01371/APP 31/10/2023 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates 15/08/2023 Review board would benefit from seeing both the salon and the site to see for themselves the small scale nature of this salon and the minimum impact it has on the surrounding area. Page 98
Page 99
Page 5 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Colin Keir Declaration Date: 19/12/2023 Page 99
Page 100
Page 100
Page 101
~ design consultants lliil p I ans Phone: 01343 842635 111 Fax: 01343 842785 Mobile: 07766 315501 Email: ctkplans@aol.com p I US ~ Web, http,//members.aol.com/ctkplans Main Street, Urquhart, Elgin, Moray, IV30 8LG PLANNING REVIEW STATEMENT PROJECT :- RETROSPECTIVE CONSENT TO CONVERT PART OF GARAGE TO HAIR SALON AT 22 DUFFUS CRESCENT ELGIN MORAY IV30 lPY. PROJECT NUMBER 23-52 This was a retrospective application to convert part of a domestic garage to a small hair salon providing a work space of 3.0 x 2.57m which is a total of 7.71 sq.m. This space will only allow a working facility for the applicant and one client at any given time. This is a facility to benefit a mother of children, to give her an opportunity to earn an income during a tiny window of time between nursery, school and after school activities. It also benefits many elderly residents who have become clients over the months who do not have to take cars into town to get their hair done. They can walk to this salon. This in itself should be encouraged at a time when we are all being told to be more friendly to the planet. We will go on to explain in more detail as to why and how this low key vital business will not impact on the amenity or Human Rights of any surrounding proprietors. The application was made by a friend of the applicant who believed that planning permission was not required and that only a building warrant was necessary. The very fact that this was applied for and approved demonstrates that the applicant was not trying to hide anything from the neighbours. Many garages are converted and do not require any planning consent but in this instance a change of use was involved which has led to the retrospective application being made. Member of Federation of Small Businesses : VAT. Reg. No. 415 7900 54 : Proprietor - Colin T. Keir Page 101
Page 102
REASONS FOR REFUSAL. You will see from the refusal notice dated 31st October 2023 that Moray Council have cited the reason for refusal as Policy NPF 16b. This in fact refers to Development Proposals within Local Development plans and bears no sugnificance to this proposal. Moray Council should have assessed this application on policy 26b and not 16b. Policy 14 in the NPF document actually states that there are 6 qualities of successful places. "Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency" It goes on to say that "supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, WORK and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions". MLDP 2020 Policy DP 1 requires that the scale, density and character of the development must be appropriate to the surrounding area and create a sense of place. Proposals must also not adversely impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, daylight or OVERBEARING LOSS OF PRIVACY. It is a well known fact that many of these new housing developments, not just in Elgin by Moray wide have seen many garages converted over the last 5 years with more and more people working from home after Covid pandemic. This in itself takes many cars off the road helping to reduce our carbon footprint. Almost every garage conversion sees a window/ door arrangement installed to replace the garage door which all appears to blend in sympathetically with their surroundings. So the actual work which has been carried out has not been detrimental to the existing character or amenity ofthe area. The window looks out on to the street as does everyone elses's windows therefore there is no privacy impingement nor is there any change to the light afforded to all surrounding properties. The Council agree that the Page 102
Page 103
£.. design consultants 11.11 p I ans Phone: 01343 842635 ID Fax: 01343 842785 I ~ Mobile: 07766 315501 P US Email: ctkplans@aol.com Web: http://members.aol.com/ctkplans _ _ Main Street, Urquhart, Elgin, Moray, IV30 8LG installation of the window is acceptable under policies NPF 14 and MLDP 2020 DPl CONCLUSIONS. It is perhaps stretching a point to put this 7. 71 sq.m. space in the same category as a Class 1 (shop use) when only dealing with a maximum of 9 clients a week albeit within daylight hours whilst the applicants children are at school or nursery. Current clientele are predominantly locals, most of whom are elderly who benefit greatly from the service the applicant provides. They do not have to drive into Elgin town centre, fret about a parking space nor have to walk further to a town centre salon than they do from their homes to the salon in question. The environment wins and so do the elderly who rely on what the applicant provides. At a time of economic turmoil, how can an individual who has to work around children's activities, possibly hope to start a business in the town working 3 hours a day for 3 days of the week. The economics simply do not stack up. You have to begin as an acorn before you become an oak tree and this is the applicant's acorn. She has to be flexible both in terms of her childrens school activities and their health as one of the children suffers from allergies and asthma so she has to be available at a drop of a hat to pick the child up. With regards to vehicle movements, we are certain that there will be more Amazon van deliveries to this address in a week that there will be clients arriving with their car. It is a facility frequented by locals who are all happy to walk to have their hair done. Member of Federation of Small Businesses : V.A.T. Reg. No. 415 7900 54 : Proprietor - Colin T. Keir Page 103
Page 104
REGULATING. The concerns around how one could control the numbers of clients is a concern which is accepted. No one these days would simply accept the word of an applicant that all she would take on in a day is 3 clients only or 9 in a week. The applicant makes all the appointments electronically and a diary is kept. Her finances would detail the payments and over a period of time it would be easy to ascertain how many clients visit per day/week. Any consent could be restricted to 3 years and re-applied for again after this time. If there were issues then any consent could be looked at afresh. A Section 75 agreement could be entered into restricting the number of bookings that could be made per week. Or the word of the applicant that she is a low key, but important contributer to the neighbourhood could be considered and avoiding people having to take cars, including herself to go to work may just allow her to make a simple living from home whilst improving the environment. There are options available to control this proposal which would protect the surrounding neighbours and also allow the applicant to service elderly people's needs who also live locally. Finally. NPF policy 14 states under the heading of ADAPTABLE. "supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. Page 104
Page 105
~ design consultants lliil p I ans Phone: 01343 842635 " Fax: 01343 842785 Mobile: 07766 315501 Email: ctkplans@aol.com P I US ~ Web: http://members.aol.com/ctkplans Main Street, Urquhart, Elgin, Moray, IV30 8LG The applicant has put together her own response to specific objections but there have been 32 local people who have supported this application. There has been no evidence to demonstrate the increase of vehicle movements since the salon started business only supposition. In a democracy 32 ayes to 5 nos would be a positive and we accept that policies are there to protect Moray. But what are we protecting here.? It is a well known fact that there are at least 49 other businesses locally (some class 1) operating. A refusal will make many residents worried that what is providing a living for them at present by working out of their homes could come to an end if identified by Moray Council as requiring planning permission. We respectfully ask that you overturn the planning departments refusal of this application as it does in our opinion comply with the policies the planning department stated for their reason to refuse this low key development. Member of Federation of Small Businesses : VAT. Reg. No. 415 7900 54 : Proprietor - Colin T. Keir Page 105
Page 106
Page 106
Page 107
Page 107
Page 108
Page 108
Page 109
Page 109
Page 110
As noted in the earlier responses, the construction works may have caused the immediate neighbours slight inconvenience, but as already mentioned, any building works at a property will create noise and disruption, but this was kept to a minimum and is now completed, so has no ongoing impact to the neighbouring properties as a result of the salon now being complete. 2. Response as noted above at point 4 regarding properties being used for business use. 3. Response as noted above at points 3 and 4 - in addition - Mrs Ferguson specifically messaged her clients to request that they approach our property via the road which passes number and leave this way also to restrict any inconvenience to the neighbours at number , as the neighbour at number have no concerns regarding the salon or the clients passing their property. (add photo) 4. What evidence is there to prove the hours that Mrs Ferguson has been working? Mrs Ferguson has kept her appointment book completely up to date with all clients times and dates of appointments and with the backup of the ring doorbell camera, can prove the times clients have attended at the property. The screenshot of the opening times has been taken from a social media page. The 'Always open' reference refers to the social media page and not the physical salon business. Mrs Ferguson's social media page can receive messages at any time, but the salon is clearly not open 24/7. Having children, Mrs Ferguson does not attend to clients in the salon in the evenings. Assumptions have been made due to the lights being on in the salon during the evening, but we are at liberty to have lights on in any room in our home without justification to our neighbours. As noted above, the amount of clients attending at the salon are no different to friends or relatives visiting our family and by no means causes danger to the children playing outside, given the times of opening are during school hours, when children are not out playing and also given our own children play on the green area mentioned, the safety of our own children is paramount and we would never put them at risk or in danger from operating the salon in our home. Having 340 followers on a social media page is no indication of how many customers the Mrs Ferguson has. Social media followers can be friends, colleagues, other hairdressers to name a few. The supportive comments are simply stating that customers can walk to the salon if they live in Hamilton Gardens, which is much more convenient that having to drive into town. The supportive comments are not all from existing customers, they are also from people who know us and are supporting us with this new venture. Page 110
Page 111
Page 111
Page 112
Page 112
Page 113
Page 113
Page 114
Page 114
Page 115
Page 115
Page 116
Page 116
Page 117
APPENDIX 3 FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES Page 117
Page 118
Page 118
Page 119
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 17 January 2024 18:17 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Hi there, I wish to add to my support of the conversion of the garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent. Since its conversion, I have not noticed a sudden influx of extra people on foot or in cars around the area. Although we live further down the street, I walk past 22 Duffus Crescent up to six times a day, mainly between 8.30 and 3.30. I have not seen any issues with extra cars or parking outside or near to 22 Duffus Crescent on any occasion. I have not met lots of people taking over the pavements near by. Most times I walk past, the house and salon look quiet and there is no one else around, just as it was before the conversion. Many thanks, On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:54 AM Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 Page 119
Page 120
2 Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 120
Page 121
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 17 January 2024 20:24 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Support for Planning Application 23/01371/APP Hi Lissa, I would like to express my support for the planning application 23/01371/APP. The reason I would like to support the application is that since the applicant has opened her salon it has allowed me to go to have my hair done for the first time in years. This is due to the affordable prices, the fact that I can go within school hours when my children are at school and nursery and also that it is within walking distance from my house which means I don’t have to travel far. I was a hairdresser myself for many years but had to give up work when I had children as I simply could not afford the rates to rent a premises in town. I think that it is fantastic that the applicant has opened this salon within her home which allows her to work within school hours. It would be a shame if the application was rejected as it would take away ability to work. Thank you. Kind regards, Sent from my iPhone Page 121
Page 122
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 17 January 2024 21:21 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Attachments: image003.png Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Dear Madam Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 [‘the Regulations’] Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP – Retrospective consent to convert part of garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent, Elgin Further to the previous support submission in connection with the above, I would have the following points to add:- Given that the salon has been operating for a period of approximately 6 months, there is now evidence that it is not posing any adverse issues to the neighbours or other proprietors on Duffus Crescent. I pass the property on a daily basis to get to and from my own home and rarely see another vehicle in the drive other than the Fergusons’ own family car. I believe that it has definitely been proven that the salon has not had any negative impact and you would actually not even realise the salon was there if you did not know it was. From the outside of the property, it looks just like any other home that has converted the garage to a room. Mrs Ferguson is a mother to 3 primary/nursery aged children and can only work during the school/nursery hours. She should be supported in being able to run the salon at her home to fit in with a very busy home life with the children. I know from my own experience that trying to work and support a family is difficult enough at the best of times. The original concerns of extra footfall, vehicular traffic, road obstruction, parking issues and privacy of neighbours can surely now all be negated, given none of these have been an issue. Commercial rates to rent a salon space or even rent a chair in an existing salon are too high for someone who has limited hours to work. Having the salon at home gives Mrs Ferguson the opportunity to be able to work and make the best use of the child free time she does have. There are numerous other businesses that run from homes in Hamilton Gardens and a small, discreet salon is an asset to the community. I am not a client of Mrs Fergusons and have no personal interest in her running the salon from home, other than to support one of the kindest people I know. Page 122
Page 123
2 I would hope that the decision be seriously reconsidered with the lives of the whole Ferguson family taken into account, as Mrs Ferguson is simply trying to work in the only way possible to support and provide for her lovely family. Yours faithfully On Tue, 16 Jan 2024, 10:54 Lissa Rowan, <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 123
Page 124
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 18 January 2024 20:27 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Hello Lissa. Thank you so much for the email. I would like to add that we have not noticed any disturbance in the area due to this business. There are no changes have been noticed to livelihood. We haven't noticed any issues with large amount of people or cars in area in the last 6 months. There has been no issue with parking or traffic within the area or our street. We fully support Rebecca with this business. For me and my family it's an advantage to have the business so close by. We wish Rebecca all the very best for her business. Kind regards From: Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> Sent: 16 January 2024 10:54 Subject: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 124
Page 125
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 18 January 2024 20:34 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: RE: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Good evening, I would like to put forward the following comments in support of the application above. As a neighbour I was previously in favour of the application and I still strongly support the application. Mrs Fergusson has been extremely considerate of other neighbours and in deed I would not know that she is operating a hair salon from her garage There certainly has been no increase in traffic or has there been any congestion or problems in parking in the street. In fact I have a new neighbor who has more cars parked every day outside their property than I have ever seen with Mrs Fergusson. I actually would not know when she is working as it is still very quiet and I have not seen large groups of people frequent the property There are quite a few of us who live on the estate who use her for our hairdressing services – it is indeed a very beneficial addition to our estate and obviously very good for carbon footprint as I can walk and I am not having to use my car, it is also very safe for my children to use her to get their hair cut. I think more people should be given the opportunity to operate from home especially as this has been done in keeping to high standards of our estate and very tastefully done in keeping with the other properties in the estate Thank you Sent from Mail for Windows From: Lissa Rowan Sent: 16 January 2024 10:54 Subject: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 125
Page 126
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 19 January 2024 10:57 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Dear Lissa, Thank you for your email and attachment. I would like to further add to my support for this application as I feel strongly that having a small local hair salon is definitely a net benefit to the community - in fact, I don’t really see any real disadvantages. I struggle to see how something being run on such a small scale for relatively short period of times could be of any more inconvenience to those living in the area than say, people having a friend/relative round to visit; having delivery drivers drop off parcels; or a window cleaner doing his rounds. I see the applicant at school pick ups/drop offs as well as at various afterschool kids’ activities and hobbies. Therefore, I do not believe she would have any or many opportunities to be able to operate outwith school hours. The nature of the business is not one where you would have a queue of people waiting outside or cars coming and going every 5minutes. It is also likely that a lot of clients will walk to the salon given its convenient location. It is extremely difficult to find premises to rent for only a few hours - you quite often need to commit to full days (as I know from my wife’s experience), this would be inefficient and would not make it worth the applicant’s time. There are so many difficulties for households with two working patents and there should be more done to help and encourage people (especially mothers) to get back to work. As my wife and I are also working parents, we can understand the need for the convenience and flexibility of being able to essentially work from home. A huge number of people are lucky enough to be able to do so and given the very quiet, limited and non-intrusive nature of the applicant’s business, I don’t see why this shouldn’t be an option for her. Kind Regards, On 16 Jan 2024, at 10:54, Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services Page 126
Page 127
2 lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 <image003.png> Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday <LR299 - Ltr to IPs NoR Not.pdf> Page 127
Page 128
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 20 January 2024 17:24 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Hi I am so very pleased to see this being reviewed. . . The family are a lovely, kind and respectful family with 3 children who are very well thought of in this estate. Ryan is a very good trustworthy respectable electrician and Rebecca an incredible talented hair dresser who just wants to work whilst not having to worry about her job effecting the kids. I and many others would very much like the salon to go ahead being we live close by and would prefer giving that the hours open are during school time hours. Not everyone drives and the bus service isn’t the best up this way anyway so even better for those who lived close by who would benefit from the short distance to Rebecca’s salon. Not to mention the ever growing populating houses being built round here would also benefit. Please see that this is beneficial for this area Regards On 16 Jan 2024, at 10:55, Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Thursday The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Page 128
Page 129
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 22 January 2024 19:00 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Dear Lissa, Many thanks for you email regarding the Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP. Please see below a further representation in support of Mrs Ferguson's planning application. Since Mrs Ferguson has opened her business operating from no.22 there has been no increase in pedestrian footfall, vehicle numbers, or traffic noise in Duffus Crescent. Indeed, if one did not already know that Mrs Ferguson had a salon you would be unaware of it. I work from home in Duffus Crescent so I am home all day with a street-side office and would certainly notice any increases in traffic or noise. Furthermore, I regularly walk past no.22 with my dog, and there has been no increase in the number of street parked vehicles, or vehicles blocking access ways. Mrs Ferguson is a busy mother who has decided to spend a couple of hours a day providing a hair dressing service for those in a similar situation on the development, and also to help support her family, to provide this service anywhere other than her home would not be feasible for her, and would remove a convenient service from those who rely on services being local. As a neighbour, I fully support Mrs Ferguson, her business provides a vital service to those unable to go elsewhere, services such as Mrs Ferguson's not only keep businesses local, they also unite the community. Best Regards. On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 10:54:43 GMT, Lissa Rowan <lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Page 129
Page 130
2 Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 130
Page 131
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 22 January 2024 19:14 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Your ref : LR/LR299 Good Evening, I have received notification of a review of the above reference. I would just like to say that I live round the corner from Mrs Fergusson and fully support the salon, I walk regularly round Hamilton gardens and have not once seen any changes in traffic or any more people around than normal. I find the convenience of the salon is excellent, saves having to go into town, I feel as a community we should support anyone trying to run a business and provide for their families. Mrs Ferguson is a very well thought of member of the community and is very considerate of anyone around her. Kind regards Sent from the all-new AOL app for iOS Page 131
Page 132
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 23 January 2024 19:14 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Dear Lisa I am writing again to support this very small business . I am able to arrive at appointments within four minutes with my electric bike which is extremely accommodating to me to be able to come before my school pick up. I am aware that most of clients live within Hamilton gardens and Bishopmill area due to them knowing the family a number of years they are all a support to the family in which other possible position is able to work such short hours in which are not a tie. Due to keeping the prices down not being in town or with high rates to pay I’m able to afford hair appointments regularly. This accommodating salon suites so many with additional needs due to its quiet and calm atmosphere. The family are committed to other activities out within school and nursery hours which gives no other flexibility for working out within them.this is such a useful business to many in the area and has no impact on anyone. The family are only trying to do the very best for themselves and their family. both running businesses and juggling life they are a hard working family and showing their children a great purpose in life with such great work ethics. On 16 Jan 2024, at 10:54, Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 <image003.png> Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday <LR299 - Ltr to IPs NoR Not.pdf> Page 132
Page 133
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 24 January 2024 07:19 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Good morning, I want to support this planning application request and wanted to highlight certain important points. First of all, it is very discreet and no one would have any idea that it is a salon. Secondly, there is no increase in traffic, nor any extra cars parking on the road due to Rebecca being exceptionally considerate and using her driveway for anyone to park so you would not know if friends,family or clients are visiting nor would anyone care as not effecting anyone else. Lastly, it is hard for us mums to work hours around the school day. Only possible to work 4.5hours due to drop off/pickup/lunch, however working from home allows more flexibility meaning more money for the family to live off. We should be supporting these small businesses not hindering, and supporting people to work a decent amount of house to help with the economy. Kind regards Sent from Outlook for iOS From: Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:59:46 AM Subject: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 Page 133
Page 134
2 Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 134
Page 135
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 28 January 2024 07:50 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Application Ref- 23/01371/APP Application Ref- 23/01371/APP Dear Lissa , Myself and my family live to the applicants on the end of the access road. Due to me working part time from home I have had no disturbance in any way from the salon being next door. For the last 6 months we have no difference or change and they been very accommodating asking clients to walk around the own pathway. Whilst working I have noticed anyone passing. We barely ever see any cars there and when they do have a visitor they always use their driveway. We have never had an issue with parked cars on the access road or street from the Ferguson’s. The salon is very well done and this is a huge benefit to us as a family I can go on my day off for appointments while my children are at school. My husband works shifts and can use the salon whilst home in the day also. During school holidays I can send my children in one at a time whilst staying home with the others and I can continue to work. This is extremely rare and a fantastic experience for us. we fully support Mrs Ferguson working from home and see how busy their family are on a day to day basis, the same as we are. I am aware of many residents in Hamilton gardens who also support it as it is so useful to us. We are also very aware of how many businesses in which run from here and they have not been issued with any problems all fully supported by the community. Some of these 48 other businesses here have continuous clients on a much larger scale, it is very unfair that the Ferguson’s have been targeted for this very small business. Mrs Ferguson has such a limited time to work which I understand myself and just wants to get on with juggling her children. I really hope you are able to overturn the decision on this small business and approve. Page 135
Page 136
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 28 January 2024 19:34 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Good evening, I would like to add to my previous email please, stating why Mrs Ferguson should be allowed to keep her salon in Duffus Crescent, Elgin. I myself live on Duffus Crescent and am extremely happy that I can walk to my hairdresser. There have been no issues with parking on the estate as far as I am aware of. I have never seen or heard of any issues of this. This is just a mum of young children looking to do what she loves in her own home. Please consider letting Mrs Ferguson keep her beautiful salon. It’s not hurting anyone. Kind regards Sent from my iPhone On 16 Jan 2024, at 10:54, Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 <image003.png> Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday <LR299 - Ltr to IPs NoR Not.pdf> Page 136
Page 137
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 29 January 2024 21:24 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Good evening, I write regarding the retrospective planning permission Of 22 Duffus Crescent. Further to my first comments I would like to add that since then I have not noticed any extra traffic in the area. I visit a friend regularly on Duffus crescent and drive past most days to my home on the estate and at no point has the drive or road looked busy or overcrowded outside number 22. The transformation of the garage looks pleasing to the eye and has been done to a high standard and looks In keeping with other houses on the street with wood cladding. Having visited the salon with my daughter, it is very clear that the small salon would not be able to expand and have more than the number of clients Mrs Ferguson stated in her plans which I believe is the concern of some. I have also visited the salon and at no point have i felt the need to observe the houses surrounding it, which again, i believe is the concern of some. I also have to say that my daughter gets anxious with visiting salons but this homely experience allowed her to feel comfortable and calm. With additional support needs on the rise throughout the country, I feel it is important to have more options and this salon feels calming for parents and children alike. I fully support this business and I would find it a huge shame that The Ferguson's should be disadvantaged due to a very small minority, especially when there are several other businesses on the estate who have had no objections . Until a recent house sale, the house across from The Ferguson's had a dog grooming business running in the back garden. I really do hope that this hard working family are left to enjoy their property and Mrs Ferguson continues to be able to work from home. They are an asset to the estate and their work ethic and juggling of parenting are to be admired. Kind regards, Sent from Outlook for Android From: Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:54:41 AM Subject: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Page 137
Page 138
2 Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 138
Page 139
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 29 January 2024 21:36 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Good evening In addition to my previous comments with regards being in favour of Mrs feegussons hair salon I had mentioned I felt the salon is very safe for my children to get their hair cut. My teenager has autism and can be over whelmed by busy and noisy environments . The fact that Mrs Ferguson has only the capacity to have one client at a time makes my daughter feel very comfortable and safe as it is a nice and quiet space for her and easy access to home . Thank you Sent from my iPhone Good evening, I would like to put forward the following comments in support of the application above. As a neighbour I was previously in favour of the application and I still strongly support the application. Mrs Fergusson has been extremely considerate of other neighbours and in deed I would not know that she is operating a hair salon from her garage There certainly has been no increase in traffic or has there been any congestion or problems in parking in the street. I actually would not know when she is working as it is still very quiet and I have not seen large groups of people frequent the property There are quite a few of us who live on the estate who use her for our hairdressing services – it is indeed a very beneficial addition to our estate and obviously very good for carbon footprint as I can walk and I am not having to use my car, it is also very safe for my children to use her to get their hair cut. I think more people should be given the opportunity to operate from home especially as this has been done in keeping to high standards of our estate and very tastefully done in keeping with the other properties in the estate Thank you Sent from Mail for Windows From: Lissa Rowan Sent: 16 January 2024 10:54 Subject: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Page 139
Page 140
2 Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 <image003.png> Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday Page 140
Page 141
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 26 January 2024 15:36 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Ref: LR/LR 299 - 22 Duffus Crescent Good aŌernoon, I received a leƩer about the above property and the small business that trades from the converted garage. I have not noƟced any increase in traffic in the area due to Mrs Fergusons small business starƟng. If the business was bigger, I would expect there to be a dramaƟc increase in car’s parked on the side of the road and a constant disturbance due to people constantly coming back and too, but this is far from the case. I haven’t noƟced any change. I don’t believe that the size of the business would interrupt any neighbours as there is only a few people arriving throughout the day. I would compare this to my friend coming round for a coffee or a Tesco delivery. On another note, I think it’s great that a young individual is looking to start a small business in the area considering the recent economic turmoil with general cost increases/interest rate rises etc. Why would anybody wish to put a stop to it as it will bring a benefit to the local community. Kind Regards, Page 141
Page 142
While I do not wish to make comments relating to personal issues, I have to reply to matters raised by the applicant. The applicant has stated ‘they feel victimised by objectors who now intimidate us and any visitors when taking access to and from our home’ If this is aimed at my family, it is simply untrue. But it has to be said that any innocent interaction or movement outside of my property has been viewed as intimidation by the applicant. I have previously had Mr Ferguson on my doorstep making a false allegation of intimidation. It was fully explained to him and he could not contest my reasons. He then made ANOTHER allegation of intimidation, which AGAIN was explained, and AGAIN he could not offer evidence to prove his point. During this discussion, Mrs Ferguson strode to my front door saying ‘they are not listening’, and proceeded to talk AT me rather than have a discussion WITH me. This escalation culminated with Mrs Ferguson shouting as she left my doorstep. I did not hear everything she said as her back was towards me as she was shouting. I was fortunate in this instance that other neighbours had heard the commotion and came to check we were both ok, as unfortunately my daughter was exposed to this behaviour due to the shouting from the applicant. This was a frightening experience for both of us, and had considerable impact. This is not the behaviour of a ‘low key’ or considerate neighbour. Their latest response now includes a further allegation of watching them through the fence. We share a fenceline separated roughly in the middle, and we have pots as part of our front garden. I can say both my wife and I have been in this vicinity, checking our garden pots due to recent winds and for general upkeep, but also because due to the actions and behaviours of the applicant (which we have not detailed, as they are not material concerns relating to the plan) we intend to install a fence in the summer, and I needed to verify the boundary. I have run a line to extend the fenceline, and they will find a red mark on the kerb which will verify this statement. (I have also been at their gate on several occasions in the early hours of the morning- the gate is often not closed, and allowed to bang nosily which wakes us up, so I go out to close it.) I hope this answer regarding being at the fence reassures them that nothing untoward was taking place, and the installation of the fence will provide a physical barrier to further guard against misunderstandings. The fence will be installed entirely on our property so they do not have to worry about maintenance. Due to the personal viewpoints being expressed, I feel a site visit should be refused, as there is enough evidence and reports in place to perform an impartial assessment, rather than having a private audience to express the applicants comments. They say they have experienced deliberate obstruction of the access road from neighbours, making it near impossible for them to access their drive. We have lived here happily for 8 years, with absolutely zero instances of parking issues from any of the occupants of the 5 owners of the access road. It is not a main road, which the applicants are used to, it is only wide enough for one vehicle. Visitors to our house park in front of our drive, and it does block the access road. We are located in the middle, with two houses either side of us, so if we have a visitor parked in front of our house, the other residents STILL have access to one of the two entrance/exit points. We ensure that enough space is left available for the applicant to be able to manoeuvre their vehicle and use the entrance they are immediately next to. Pictures taken and submitted by the applicant clearly demonstrate this. Our visitors have parked this way for 8 years, and it has not caused any issues whatsoever with previous neighbours. There is no delicate way to say it, but this is a non-existent issue, and they seem determined to make their life difficult while attempting to make it into an issue. They park vehicles facing the longest way out, increasing chances of any visitors at two houses blocking their way. I arrived home in my work vehicle, and seeing Mrs Ferguson at her car, quickly reversed in to clear the road. Rather than drive past (or perform a 3-point turn in her drive), she reversed out of the other entrance. Contrast this with Mr Ferguson, who decided to mount the kerb and drive half on the grass to pass a visitor’s car, a dangerous manoeuvre that could have damaged his or our visitor’s vehicle, and a bizarre one considering the entire rest of the road was completely empty, and he could have driven in the other entrance without any issues. We do not have visitors often, but appear to have been under surveillance for a number of months, and in the submitted pictures they managed to capture every single visitor which I find shocking, especially as they are the ones seemingly having people looking in their windows and being intimidated. Page 142
Page 143
Parking: To justify parking, the applicant states other families have more vehicles parked at their houses. That is a different physical, geographic location, and has nothing to do with this application. The fact is, the access road was never designed for a large number of vehicles. Historically the 3 families centrally on the access road have had 2 vehicles, and have had visitors, but no parking instances. We have never objected to the applicant having visitors, or visitors parking in front of THEIR house- but increasing numbers of visitors/customers and family members were parking in front of our property, even though they could have parked in front of the applicants? We do not like confrontation, so just put up with it, and then received notification of the retrospective planning application. This just seemed a further extension of the applicant doing what they wanted with no consideration to others. With no attempt from them to discuss their plans, our only recourse was to place an objection in the planning system. The access road is only wide enough for 1 vehicle, it was never designed for large volumes of traffic. I previously had a large van for work, and had to park outside the estate as it was too difficult to manoeuvre in the access road, so I speak from experience. If the applicant has encountered difficulty manoeuvring when entering/leaving the access road when they only have 2 vehicles it will only be made increasingly difficult, if not impossible, with 4 vehicles. Modifying the front will not alleviate this issue. They have also mentioned a parking incident where they were ‘targeted by an irate neighbour over parking’. They have neglected to mention the entire incident was CAUSED by their inconsiderate parking of two vehicles in front of that neighbours’ house, leaving no room if the occupant expected visitors. Reconfiguration of drive: The reconfiguration of the drive was submitted along with retrospective planning application for the business, and while it may be beneficial for them, parking requirements have to be met by any proposed business, and this was done primarily as a conditional requirement for a business. I am happy to be corrected, but the report of handling states ‘the existing driveway to be reconfigured and extended to allow four car parking spaces…… within 6 months of the decision notice to allow sufficient parking for the domestic property and the salon within.’ The applicant states they already have permission to alter their drive- but surely that is only if the business application is successful? As stated above, reconfiguring the drive will not alleviate issues. Other Businesses in estate: Regarding other businesses running in the estate, I am aware of this, but I am not aware of any impact on their neighbours, or their location within the estate. That has nothing to do with me, or this application. Moray Planning department have clearly stated each application is considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account material considerations. The businesses noted may not have required planning consent, or have any impact on the amenity. Mr Keir says a refusal will make many residents feel worried that working out of their homes will come to an end if the application is refused. I feel the sidelines/microbusinesses/home office arrangements in the estate are subject to their own discussion within their immediate locality. The only worry that is being created is by Mr Keir trying to say this planning application affects them, which it doesn’t. The deeds stipulate no business is to be run from the estate to protect the amenity. The planning system is there for the same purpose. Neighbours can have disagreements, over many issues, or over the impact of a business. That is THEIR business, neighbours can come to agreements over what takes place in their locality, as long as they are in agreement. As Mr Keir states, we live in a democratic society. The deeds are only there to enforce decisions made by the experienced council planners, which in this case was to refuse the application. Provisions in place: A number of provisions have been put forward to address concerns of numbers of customers. Electronic diaries, finance checks, a section 75 agreement. Diaries can be altered, off the books diaries kept, data can be deleted, payments may be cash in hand. There are numerous ways that customer numbers can be manipulated, which is why on a similar conversion a Moray planning officer refused it, as there was no way of officially regulating it once approval had been given. Mr Keir states that it is a stretch to call the business a shop, but it is. He goes on to say you begin as an acorn before becoming an oak tree. Every business owner wants their business to grow, but this location is unsuitable for that growth. If it is so small scale, it seems overkill to turn part of your house into a shop, when simply operating as a mobile hairdresser would ensure the ability to be flexible and mobile for your family, while catering to the elderly in the comfort of their homes, and reducing your overall running costs from energy expenditure? Page 143
Page 144
Further comments from Mr Keir It has to be stated that Mr Keir is not impartial and has been paid to favour the applicants position. Mr Keir states 32 ayes to 5 nos would be a positive and that policies are there to protect Moray. My understanding was the planning process was to pass comment on an application that had an effect on you, not a straightforward vote where most votes indicate the winner. If that was the case, rather than just follow the rules of the planning system, I am sure 5 objectors would be able to muster more support than one applicant. That aside, some submissions of support appeared blank, others were personal attacks, and very few actually contained material considerations. As I mentioned in my objection, the customers disrupt our amenity, then return to their own home which is undisturbed. Mr Keir accepts policies are in place to protect Moray. Those same policies were responsible for the application being refused, after consideration of all arguments, but the decision was not accepted by the applicant. He asks ‘what is being protected?’- that would be the democratic right of the 5 objectors to have their objections heard, and then be validated by council planners in refusing the application. The applicant admits it was rushed, which resulted in no planning, and no assessment of the location, impact on amenity, or any discussion at all with neighbours on the subject before proceeding. No discussion of the purpose/nature of the work was given, not even through 2 weeks of noise and disruption when there was ample opportunity to do so- a strange situation given we were classed as friends for a number of years. I do not believe it was rushed, and feel it was a calculated decision to put everything in place to try and force their application through. The applicant states she is considerate, but even she says ‘ she did not for one minute consider the neighbours (would object to the alterations)’ . I feel the first part of that sentence is the pertinent part. Due to communication not being open from the start, I feel I cannot trust their word on their intentions with this proposal as ultimately it CANNOT be controlled, regardless of any short-term measures. I can understand their feelings of emotional and mental upset, as this has had a damaging effect on all concerned. Not wishing to detract from those feelings, it may help them to understand this is purely a planning matter, and comments should have been restricted to this. I have reviewed my initial comments, and found none of them derogatory or personal in nature. It was my understanding that the planning application was subject to all MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS pertaining to the plan, both for and against. Unfortunately, it has turned into a toxic environment of personal attacks and bullying behaviour against objectors, who have only exercised their legal right to have an opinion on a building matter that affects them. I live in a residential estate, and did not expect a shop to be developed next door. 4 other objectors in the very near vicinity appear to have the same opinion. It is unfortunate that the applicant cannot understand that it is perfectly acceptable to hold a different opinion to theirs. This is why we have an impartial planning system, one that assessed both opinions, and ruled the development of a shop in a residential area should be refused. Page 144
Page 145
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 31 January 2024 20:37 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Re: Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Many thanks for the correspondence surrounding this planning application. I understand that there is a due process to follow but it is both surprising and alarming that this case is consuming so much time, effort and money, not only by the applicants but also the council. This is a micro business (not even a small business) that has minimal impact on the environment in which it operates, and on the residences that surrounds it. The owners are extremely sensitive to their position in there local community, with minimal foot fall, no additional traffic arriving at the premises, and no inconvenience caused to neighbours. I am also aware of other businesses being operated from private residences not only within this estate but in other areas of Elgin. Is the same level of rigour applied to other applicants? Common sense must prevail. Small and micro businesses are the lifeblood of any community. Many thanks, On 16 Jan 2024, at 10:54, Lissa Rowan <Lissa.Rowan@moray.gov.uk> wrote: Good morning Please find attached correspondence in relation to the above Notice of Review. Kind regards Lissa Lissa Rowan| Committee Services Officer | Governance, Strategy and Performance Services lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk | website | facebook | twitter | instagram | news 01343 563015 or 07765 741754 <image003.png> Please note, my working pattern is Monday-Thursday <LR299 - Ltr to IPs NoR Not.pdf> Page 145
Page 146
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 30 January 2024 20:30 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: Fwd: Planning Application 23/01371/APP Warning. This email contains web links and originates from outside of the Moray Council network. You should only click on these links if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Can I please update my response to- In relation to the NOR for the above application I would like to add the below additional comments - Information detailed in the response from Mr & Mrs Fergusson in my opinion are quite clearly manipulative fabrications intended to vilify the "Objectors" for their right to object to local planning permission. The fabricated issues they have raised in regards to neighbours should have no bearing over the planning permission and is clearly a distraction tactic from the main issue of planning which is a class 1 shop being in a residential area. Responses in my opinion should be based purely on the planning permission and I fully support Moray Council's decision to decline permission on the basis that this is a residential area and there is no manner in which to monitor the business at 22 Duffus Crescent. Page 146
Page 147
1 Lissa Rowan From: Sent: 05 February 2024 14:48 To: Lissa Rowan Subject: 22 Duffus Crescent Elgin I have no objection for the change of use from garage to hair salon. Page 147
Page 148
Page 148
Page 149
APPENDIX 4 APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS Page 149
Page 150
Page 150
Page 151
Reference – LR/LR299 Dear Lissa Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 [‘the Regulations’] Notice of Review: Planning Application 23/01371/APP – Retrospective consent to convert part of garage to hair salon at 22 Duffus Crescent, Elgin With reference to the 2 objections that have been received in connection with our appeal, we would like the following to be considered:- We have lived on the street for over 11 years, only 4 houses away. We have never experienced issues on parking . Our personal trips in and out of our home are irrelevant to the planning. leaving visitors to park on the access road, this stops Emergency services from having complete access if they were ever required, which is a huge worry to us. By continuing to park here gives no turning for anyone not just us, but the 5 houses who share the access. . There is ample space in the street for parking. Large vans are parked throughout the estate and plenty other vehicles, this is normal life when living in a residential estate. Our driveway and front of house has plans to make a safe and convenient parking area for our family and few clients when needed. This will be off street parking and is considerate to neighbours. We have chosen this option due to the wall taking up most of our driveway, is not as easy for children entering/exiting our family car and use of children’s play equipment, so having proper use of the driveway to make life easier. ? The many businesses locally have far larger numbers of clients, some having up to 65 per week. My business is small and discreet with minimal clients. Page 151
Page 152
Objectors have pointed out they are happy for other businesses to continue and would like to continue to try prevent my business succeeding. The suggestion of becoming a mobile business is of no concern of my neighbours and in their opinion may be an option, but is in no way viable for me. , to become mobile would outweigh the option of me working. Further information in support of me working from my home reducing fuel, nursery/childcare bills and rents/rates have previously been provided. I have been in the hairdressing industry since the age of 12 and have been self employed for 6 years and have always kept up to date records and accounts. I have payment and appointment systems. I have no intentions of increasing size or numbers or growing my business. This has been made clear previously. The salon is a small room to accommodate a tiny business and certainly is not a ‘shop’! The room accommodates one person at one time. There is no shop access from the main street and no signage. From the exterior you would be unaware what the room was being used for. Consideration has always been given to neighbours and was discussed with two of the objectors on starting. I have always provided information to clients how to be accommodating to neighbours on entering and exiting by always using our side of the access and always using our driveway and path. None of my clients have any interest in bothering others. The neighbours on the opposite side to the objector have submitted a very supportive comment, so if parking or privacy was an issue, it would effect these neighbours also, however it is clear from their supportive statement that there are no issues at all. During the appeal process we have only received 2 objecting comments, whereas our original application received 4. This would lead us to believe that the other 2 original objectors have no further concerns with the salon. Given the salon has been in use for 6 months and caused no additional concerns to these 4 original objectors is proof in itself that the business is causing no harm, inconvenience or disruption to anyone, or surely they would have amended or raised any further concerns as this appeal stage. Every other business in Hamilton gardens have supported ours. We had 32 supporting comments to our original application and further to that this time we have 50. I have been working for 6 months from my home and proved this has not disturbed anyone. Quite simply want to get on with our lives bringing up our family with a small income. All we have wanted is to be able to work peaceably with no cause of disruption or disturbance to anyone. In response to second objector’s comments, again by the tone of their response it is clear that the objector has a personal dislike of us. The suggestion that we have fabricated issues to distract from the issue of planning is one we would dispute. We are simply trying to explain our situation. Page 152
Page 153
The accusation that the salon is a ‘class 1 shop’ is completely untrue. It is very clear this is not a shop and only a very small salon room, for a minimal working base, for limited hours. The room only has space for one person on visit at one time. There is no room for expansion and we have absolutely no intentions of such accusations. It is more than clear to the objector what this small space is used for. There is no shop access from the Main Street and no signage. From the exterior you would be unaware what the room was being used for. As stated previously, there are numerous businesses running from Hamilton Gardens that no one has any issue with. It seems our application has been targeted by a minority within the community in a personal attack against us. By the number of supporting comments from neighbours, customers and friends, it is clear we are not the characters that the objectors are attempting to portray us as. For everyone who really knows us as a family and has personal knowledge of our reasoning behind converting the garage to a salon we have had nothing but support and kindness. We would hope our responses to the 2 objections are carefully considered and understood as part of our appeal. Mr and Mrs Ferguson Page 153
Page 154
Page 154