A businesswoman who wanted to use her new £20,000 back garden building as a creche won a lengthy planning dispute.
A neighbour complained that Holly Fitzsimons’ wooden hut in Ingleby Barwick, North Yorkshire, for her Little Oaks child-minding business would be noisy and “out of character” with the neighbourhood.
Prior to constructing the shed, the 27-year-old alleges she contacted the council and was told she did not require planning approval.
Ms. Fitzsimons claims that after her neighbour complained, the council informed her that she needed permission to use the building for business reasons or they would confiscate the property.
After a retrospective request for approval was denied in 2020 and Stockton Council took enforcement action, Ms. Fitzsimons spent £7,000 fighting the authority.
But because of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which overturned the warning and granted planning permission for the wooden outhouse, the mother of one who looked after important workers’ kids during the pandemic has now won her battle.
‘I was made to feel like a criminal,’ Ms. Fitzsimons claimed. I was constantly worried that a letter I was receiving was from the council.
“It was terrible.” I invested a total of £27K in the structure and the conflict. That money could have gone toward my daughter or my mortgage.
It lasted for three and a half years, and it was extremely demanding. The fact that I was pregnant during some of the argument contributed to my stress.
‘I was made to feel like a criminal,’ Ms. Fitzsimons claimed. I was constantly worried that a letter I was receiving was from the council.
“It was terrible.” I invested a total of £27K in the structure and the conflict. That money could have gone toward my daughter or my mortgage.
It lasted for three and a half years, and it was extremely demanding.
The fact that I was pregnant during some of the argument contributed to my stress.
“People have bars in their backyards without a permit, but mine was for a child-minding operation,” said the applicant.
“I might understand if it were a loud nightclub, but it was utilized for family on weekends or during business hours.”
“I’ve never encountered any problems with my neighbours, and the majority of them didn’t voice any concerns about cars parked in the street or the shed.” Nobody’s view is restricted by it, either.
The building was established “for the exclusive purpose of being a child-minding centre,” the council claimed in its original denial, and as such, it required authorization in and of itself.
Roy Merrett, a planning inspector, concurred that there had been a “change of use” of the structure and that the cabin’s primary use was for the child-minding enterprise.
He did not, however, concur that the cottage was “out of character” for the area, nor did he think that noise from children would be detrimental to the neighbours.
The driveway must be widened on the property during the next three months to accommodate guests as one of the terms in exchange for the permission.
The business will only be open from 7.30 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday, and won’t be open on the weekends.
The maximum number of kids who can attend at once is six.
While we are unhappy in the national planning inspector’s ruling, Cllr. Nigel Cooke said: “We are glad the inspector recognized that the business’s current operations were above a tolerable level.
‘We accept the judgement and will be writing to the business owner with advice on how best to operate within the enforced planning constraints.’