Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That application 20/01638/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of the loss of on-street parking in a locality that experiences parking pressures, insufficient parking provision for the proposed development and the associated creation of additional parking demands, will result in a detrimental loss of parking provision that will adversely affect the locality.  The proposal does not therefore comply with Policy 55 of the 1996 Adopted Local Plan; Policies SP6 and T2 of the Emerging Local Plan; Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework; and the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Vehicle Parking at New Development’ September 2011.

Audio Recording – 8 minutes 10 seconds.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01638/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Val Bryant

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposed parking spaces would be 2.4 x 4.8 m and that a condition relating to bin storage could be considered.

The Chair invited Mr Duncan Leach and Ms Lisa Montague to address the Committee.

Mr Duncan Leach thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including the following:

·                He objected to the application.

·                The officer’s recommendation was made on the basis of policy documents not relevant to the NPPF and was therefore flawed.

·                The 2019 Parking Strategy referred to was not part of the local development plan and should not be considered.

·                There was a vehicle parking Supplementary Planning Document from 2011 which should have been considered.

·                The vehicle parking SPD stated that there should be no unacceptable residual parking from new developments in a controlled parking zone.

·                The norm of parking provision for new developments was 2 spaces per dwelling which should be met in all cases unless a strong evidence case was presented and no such evidence had been provided.

·                Paragraph 5.2 of the officer’s report stated no alternative options were considered where there were alternative proposals put forward during the consultation phase which would not have the same parking access problems;

·                Policy 24 of the NHDC car parking strategy included in the SPD stated the Council will consider the need to include new residents in controlled parking zone permit schemes on a case by case basis taking into consideration planning conditions; the TRO would not need amendment as the Officer claimed;

·                This development did not meet the requirements of the local plan and constituted the privatisation of public land for private development at the expense of the local community.

Ms Lisa Montague thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including the following:

·                It had been argued that the CPZ had not been altered because the dashed lines remained unchanged and an H-bar had been installed; this was a disingenuous interpretation;

·                On this basis no public consultation was required which set a precedent that planning officers be able to drop curbs and make alterations to the street under delegated authority;

·                The functionality of the CPZ could be continuously eroded by developers at the expense of residents provided the dashed lines did not change;

·                Residents’ ability to park was going to be affected;

·                The application was not materially different to the proposal put forward in December with residents losing parking, putting more cars on the street, with inadequate parking provision within the development;

·                The site could be developed with an alternative scheme with adequate parking without a second drive way.

The Chair invited Councillor Ian Albert to address the Committee.

Councillor Ian Albert thanked the Chair for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141