Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of two 2-bed apartments with a ground floor commercial unit (Use Class A1, A2 or A3) including car parking and creation of new vehicular access of London Road (as amended by drawings B003C and B004A received 09/01/2018).

RESOLVED: That application 17/02652/1 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Erection of two 2-bed apartments with a ground floor commercial unit (Use Class A1, A2 or A3) including car parking and creation of new vehicular access of London Road (as amended by drawings B003C and B004A received 09/01/2018).

The Development Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Development and Conservation noted that a relaxation of car parking standard would be required to enable this proposal to be granted.

The car parking standards did allow flexibility where the development was in an appropriate location and in this case there was a public car park and it was within walking distance of the train station, there it was considered suitable for a reduction in the car parking standards

Parish Councillor Roger Wilcocks, Knebworth Parish Council, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02652/1.

Parish Councillor Willcocks informed Members that although this was a small site, it had to be considered along with the development on the former Chas Lowe site opposite this development.

The main issue was, as ever, regarding parking.

The Chas Lowe site had an open area which offered parking for evenings and weekends, although this would be completely used for buildings.

The intention on this site was to build two 2 bedroomed flats with some parking on site and the provision of access to the site would result in the parking on the road itself being reduced.

Parking was a continuing issue in Knebworth and it was getting worse, a controlled Parking Zone was introduced recently and other parking in the village had to be paid for.

Due to the busy train station that catered for 600,000 passengers each year including people who drive into Knebworth and park all day, there was an acute shortage of parking.

He asked that parking standard be maintained on the site, or failing that Section 106 contributions to be payable for the Scout Hut, Parish Office or other community benefit.

Members asked for clarification as to whether the development would be restricted to those aged over 55.

Mr Willcocks advised that this was not an age restricted development and that the provision of three car parking spaces did not meet the Council’s own policy standards. He also stated that the parking opposite was insufficient for the development and the shops.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Willcocks for his presentation.

Councillor Steve Hemingway, Member Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02652/1.

Councillor Hemingway informed Members that he supported the Parish Council and that parking was key when considering this development.

This was a commuter village with half a million passenger movements every year and, was the closest station to London with free on street parking therefore, on weekdays, every safe free parking space was taken by 7am by commuters.

.

Employees in village were very unhappy as they could not find an on street parking space and paid parking spaces had a maximum stay of 4 hours. The pay and display ca park was heavily used by people going to the busy school and there was a proposal for a second school in the village resulting in more parents binging their children to school by car.

The B197 was chronically busy in Knebworth and was difficult to navigate

.The nature of development needed to be considered with 2 shops, 2 flats and only 3 car parking spaces.

There was no justification for relaxing the parking standards in respect of these flats. This might be different if Knebworth had the full range of facilities without the need for access to a car.

There was a range of useful facilities in the village, which consisted of 2 funeral directors, 4 churches, and 0 pubs. 1 restaurant but it had to be acknowledged that Knebworth was a village and therefore people living there needed a car.

This development was logically connected to the development of 48 flats across the road which was for assisted living which would require many carers, catering and medial staff visiting and only had 20 parking spaces.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Hemingway for his presentation.

The Development Officer advised that. Although this application was from the same applicant as that across the road, he was concerned that the applications were being linked. A decision should only be made regarding the application being considered.

He further advised that applications should only be refused due to parking where the impact of development would be severe. This was recognised in an appeal regarding an application in Letchworth which, although there was not a comparison with services available, Inspectors approved a scheme for 18 dwelling with zero parking.

In this case the ideal provision would be 4 parking spaces however three spaces were being provided and it would be unnecessary to insist on the full parking standard when there were other facilities in the street.

Members acknowledge that this application was one car parking space short of the car parking standards for dwelling, but queried the parking requirements for the shops that would be provided below these flats.

The Development Officer advised that parking requirements for the shops below varied according to the type of provision and this detail had not been specified in the application and spaces may not need to be provided on site.

In considering the car parking provision he had primarily considered the residential aspect of the development and it should be noted that other commercial properties along the road did not appear to provide any private parking spaces.

Members noted that not only did the development only provide 3 car parking spaces, but that on-street parking spaces would be lost due to the provision of an access to the development.

The Development Officer advised that there was a Section 278 legal agreement that required the parking space that would be lost due to theses being replaced further down the road.

Members queried where on London Road this parking space could be moved to.

The Development Officer advised that he had posed this question and was assured that this space would be able to be replaced and it was entirely possible that those living in a 2 bedroomed flat only owned one car. The area was also served by sustainable transport links.

Members acknowledged the car parking problems in Knebworth, but felt unable to refuse this application based on parking issues as any appeal may be lost.

It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED: That application 17/02652/1 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.