The appellant lived next door to the bungalow, which was owned by her grandmother. She was newly qualified and it was a start-up business. The inspector considered that the arrangement was akin to home working, which was encouraged by policies of the core strategy because it contributed to local needs, helped to sustain the village and provided employment opportunities.
However, he appreciated the council’s and neighbours’ concerns about parking and amenity problems, remarking that if the business ceased to be a low-key operation controlled by the family or if the bungalow were occupied in the future by car users, activity might occur that affected residential amenity and there could be a shortage of parking facilities.
The inspector noted that the NPPF indicated that decision-makers should look for solutions and he decided that conditions would adequately address the concerns which arose. In particular, the permission was made personal to the appellant so that the council would have the opportunity to reassess the planning issues if circumstances changed in the future.
Inspector David Hainsworth; Written representations