A Dunchurch doctor has been granted planning permission to provide “cosmetic medical services” from his converted garage despite a backlash from neighbours.

The doctor secured permission from Rugby Borough Council to convert the garage at his two-storey detached property on Boughton Close, Dunchurch, to accommodate what his planning statement describes as “an aesthetics service business”.

He initially asked for permission to operate from 9am until 6pm Monday to Friday but parking considerations saw the borough council’s planning officers – the employed professionals – whittle that down to 10am until 4pm on weekdays only and excluding bank holidays.

Planning officer Calum Mason deemed that would be acceptable in line with the lack of objection from Warwickshire County Council as the highways authority.

The doctor has secured permission from Rugby Borough Council to convert the garage at his two-storey detached property, to accommodate what his planning statement describes as “an aesthetics service business”.

placeholder image — The doctor has secured permission from Rugby Borough Council to convert the garage at his two-storey detached property, to accommodate what his planning statement describes as “an aesthetics service business”.

That was the principle gripe put forward by fellow residents who also have concerns over the nature of the equipment kept on site, in particular the potential for such items to be a target for theft, plus the potential for this to set a precedent. They argued it is the wrong location for a business of this nature.

Those threads were pulled at by concerned councillors on the planning committee, including Councillor Belinda Garcia (Con, Revel & Binley Woods).

“It does look like a very idyllic residential area, doesn’t it,” she said.

“Putting myself in the neighbour’s position, I know we probably can’t take this into consideration, but are we opening a can of worms? Is this going to open up everyone having businesses in these garages?”

Mr Mason was insistent permission would not set a precedent as planning applications are judged on their individual merits, adding the opinion that it was “unlikely” people would be inspired to submit similar applications “too often” if this was given the green light.

Another bone of contention – and the remaining source of hope for objectors – was a covenant on the properties “restricting the change of use of their private garage to be used for any trade or business purposes”.

Mr Mason explained that could not be considered by councillors with the borough’s legal adviser supporting his stance, saying it was “a civil law matter that neighbours would have to talk (about) amongst themselves”.

“Ultimately it is not a matter for this regulatory committee,” he said.

“You may end up granting planning permission that can never be implemented because the locals have their own right to stop (it), but it is not a matter for you.”