Agenda item

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 opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                Public consultation on the removal of parking spaces from the road was necessary;

·                There had been no consultation on the TRO;

·                The logical end point of the scheme in the report was that no public consultation would ever be necessary;

·                The scheme of consultation on planning applications was different from wider consultation on parking matters for the whole road;

·                226 parking permits were issued for Radcliffe Road where there were around 70 residences;

·                A reduction in parking spaces with an increase in residences would have a negative impact on an already congested site;

·                The fact the site had been deemed a sustainable location where car parking was not necessary was inaccurate;

·                Proposed bin storage solutions were not adequate and the bin collection location was too far away from the development and would negatively impact the narrow pavements;

·                The developer had alternative proposals to consider and this application should be rejected.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

 

In response to questions Councillor Ian Albert advised:

 

·                In his view conditions restricting the sale of further parking permits and requiring bin storage to be an adequate distance from the road were necessary;

·                He believed the application should be rejected and the applicant should re-apply with an alternative proposal.

 

The Chair invited Mr Tom Donovan to address the Committee.

 

Mr Tom Donovan thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                He was an agent of the applicant speaking in support of the application.

·                The question for the Committee was whether planning policy could support the imposition of conditions or requirements on a development and they should not be permitted unless they meet the relevant legal tests.

·                There was no requirement to amend the TRO and as such no monetary implications to consider; though residents could apply for permits the development was small and the highways authority concluded the effect of new residents would be minimal.

·                There was no justification for requiring conditions on parking in this case.

·                This development would require a relaxation of parking space provision standards but such a relaxation was permitted under the SPD because of the developments sustainable location.

·                The committee had to be mindful of the shortfall of housing in the District and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

·                There was no evidence to suggest the development would have a severe residual impact on the highway and the relevant statutory consultees had not objected on that basis.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

 

In response to questions Mr Tom Donovan advised:

 

·                The NPPF was supportive of the reuse of vacant buildings and underutilised land.

·                The provision of residential dwellings was the most significant benefit of the proposal and there was no evidence that any residual impact on parking conditions would be severe.

·                The committee had to determine the application before it and could not consider it against an alternative scheme of design that had not been submitted.

 

The Chair invited the Senior Planning Officer to respond to issues raised during the presentations.

 

The Senior Planning officer advised on matters including:

 

·                The 2011 Parking SPD was a planning document which was taken in to consideration but the Parking Strategy document was a parking services document which does not form part of the development plan and was therefore not considered.

·                The location was sustainable and the development was small-scale and officers considered there was justification for a reduced level of parking for the dwellings.

·                An additional parking space was proposed for N. 61A.

·                The length of the parking bay removed by the development would be 5.4 M in length which represents one on-street parking bay, not two.

·                The impact on the CPZ and TRO was considered by the Strategic Infrastructure and Development Manager and the report takes their professional advice.

 

The following Members asked questions and participated in the debate:

 

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Carol Stanier

·                Councillor Tony Hunter

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

 

Points raised included:

 

·                The removal of permitted development rights;

·                Bin storage;

·                The failure to comply with the standards of the Emerging Local Plan and the SPD on Parking in new developments;

·                The provisions of the NPPF superseding the requirements of a supplementary planning document;

·                Highways safety.

 

In response to questions the Development and Conservation Manager advised that if the Committee was minded to reject the application on highways grounds any appeal would require the Council to produce evidence demonstrating severe adverse impact.

 

Councillor David proposed, Councillor Sue Ngwala seconded and it was:

 

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.