A bizarre row over ice cream vans has engulfed the lives of people living in a quiet cul-de-sac. The bitter fallout has become so severe that those involved, including the owner of the vans, say their quality of life is now being impacted.
The trouble centres around a homeowner who has recently applied to the council's planning committee for an extension to his house. The plans submitted by the resident are to demolish the existing conservatory and build a two-storey extension at the rear of a property attracted objections from neighbours.
A number of the objectors raised concerns about the impact on parking with vehicles coming to and from the property, and concerns it would be used as a business. And, there is already an enforcement notice in place at the Tameside home which allows only two ice cream vans to be stored at the site at any time, MEN reports.
Council officers say there are ‘ongoing enforcement matters and concerns regarding potential breaches of planning at the application site’, and if more than two ice cream vans are found to be parked up the council may take further action. However, they concluded after several surprise and planned officer visits to the cul-de-sac that the proposed extension would be used for domestic purposes.
Head of planning Melanie Hale said: “There’s no evidence that the main dwelling and attached garage are being used for business purposes. “It’s our view that the application should be considered as an extension to a dwelling.”
But she added that ‘over time’ as it came into summer there had been an increase in the storage of stock at another garage in the rear of the site. “We have observed ice cream vans being present at the property,” she said. “It comes down to the fact there is a business being run from the premises, about that there is no doubt, but it’s the extent of which it is.”
Objector and next-door neighbour John Schofield said he had previously ‘pleaded’ the case of people living around Downing Close to the council. He distributed photos of ice cream vans that he said had been parked outside the house to panel members.
He said at the meeting: “I am not against a two-storey extension at all on a residential property. I really am not."
“There have been regular visits from the council but with the greatest of respect these visits have been done at midday, these ice cream vans aren’t going to be there in the day because they’re out earning money. They’re there in the morning and they’re there in the evening because that’s when they need storage.
“It’s very difficult for myself and neighbours to capture this enforcement notice being breached. But one of my neighbours at the back has captured three ice cream vans being stored at one given time.
“I believe that this two-storey extension would be done for commercial purposes really and a change of use would be better applied for. I would like to know if this enforcement notice is worth the paper it’s written on.
"I don’t want to be overlooked by multiple ice cream vans.
“Because it’s the quality of my life, the joy for me of owning that home is no longer going to be there nor is it for the surrounding neighbours.”
Councillor Doreen Dickinson, Conservative group leader and Stalybridge South member said he had ‘her sympathy’ but the panel’s hands were tied to judge the application by planning issues. Coun Betty Affleck, who represents Hyde Godley, added: “The extension is within the law but why are all these ice cream vans going in and out?”
St Peter’s ward member Coun Joyce Bowerman said: “The thing I find concerning is this outstanding and ongoing enforcement issue. Looking at the photos it looks like there’s a lot more than two ice cream vans being parked at the premises.”
A decision on the plans had previously been deferred so that the council could investigate whether the house was being used for a business. The agent on behalf of the applicant, Sohail Musa, said: “The council has visited the property on three different occasions and has been satisfied that it is in fact a dwelling-house.
“I realise that the objectors are aggrieved with various other issues going on at this site and I do sympathise.
“Unfortunately that doesn’t have any bearing on this application and it should be judged on its own merits. We’ve also got to sympathise with the applicant, he lives at the property, he’s got family, he’s got extended family that utilise the property and the financial and emotional burden it’s had on my applicant I have seen first hand.
“The extension is required to service family needs. Can you imagine having your property constantly visited by the council to ascertain its use as well as being constantly under surveillance by your neighbours?
“I get some of the reasons why, but how long can this continue for? He does have a right to privacy, he does have a right to live at this property and utilise it as a house.”
Mr Musa said that ‘on the odd occasion’ there were ice cream vans parked up at the house. But he added: “The applicant is happy for the council to pop over and visit the property whenever they feel is necessary to check it’s not being used as a business.”
Committee chair Coun David McNally responded: “I get what you’re saying, the household has a right to privacy and a good standard of living – so does his neighbours’.
“We’ve got to judge, is it a house? Is it a business? You can’t just say that you think he’s been hard done by. The emotions and other things don’t come into it.”
Coun McNally recommended they approve the application, which was supported by all but Coun Bowerman. However the chair urged objectors to continue to alert the council to enforcement breaches over the number of ice cream vans parking at the house.
