Agenda item

To receive a report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The Development Management Committee received the application which sought outline planning permission for the erection of a part two-storey, part single storey rear extension and a single-storey side extension, following the demolition of the existing side extension. The application sought the existing two-bedroom dwelling increased in size to accommodate a third bedroom at first floor and a fourth bedroom at ground floor.  The description of the proposed development  and floor plans were amended during the application process to remove a reference to a change of use.

The application was brought to the Committee as Councillor Rowse had called in the application due to parking provisions.

The ward Councillor, Tim Rowse, addressed the Committee as follows:

“I wanted to stress that when I called it in it was originally against the change of use application, albeit they subsequently changed that I'll try and keep my objection brief.

Parking in my ward is under huge stress as car ownership is far in excess of what was envisaged when the housing was built.  Matters have been exacerbated by the large growth in HMOs, many of which do not do not satisfy the parking requirements for off street parking of the special planning directive including the nearby 74 Hillcrest.

Officers say that there is currently under provision of car parking at 1.00 and a half spaces, and the proposals mean it was shoulder of a further one and a half spaces, so three in total.

The proposal is for a care home and whilst I doubt if any of the residents will need to park outside. I would expect their visitors to travel by car, as many of their visits are likely to be in the evening or at weekends when public transport is less available and parking is most stressed as few residents are at work.

My objection links to key principles of our Local Plan and specifically, I believe this planning application is contrary to point 6 of borough wide strategic objectives to maximise the opportunity to travel by sustainable transport modes and manage parking demand.

Furthermore, I believe it is reasonable to believe that visitors and residents struggling to park will have a negative impact on highway safety. This property is near the junction with Hazeldine Meadows.

At 9.3 1 of their report officers said that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to provide on-site car parking, given the constraints of the application site. I believe this fails to put sufficient emphasis on point 6 of our borough wide strategic objectives, and I believe there are opportunities to provide off street parking either the front of the building or possibly at the rear, which is accessed by the road running to the Council garages. We could, and we should be challenging this parking creep is a nightmare in my ward. I therefore suggest that this planning application could be approved, subject to the existing conditions outlined at 11.00 of the officers report, together with a further provision to provide off street parking for 3 cars.”

The following points were made during the discussion:

·         Concerns were raised regarding parking in the area and the application not having off street parking.

·         A member highlighted the importance of having a balance between granting applications for housing with sufficient parking, or public transport as this could be come an issue in the future.

·         Concerns were raised about the height of the extensions and whether this would impact the neighbours. It was confirmed a comment had been received by the neighbour and the impact on the neighbouring property were included in the report.

·         The property would be able to apply for parking permits.

·         Concern was raised that parking implications could restrict visitors to the property which was intended to be a care home. Officers confirmed that visitor permits could be applied for.

·         Concern was raised for regarding access for emergency services to the property. It was confirmed that the access would not be changed and would continue with what is already in place.

RESOLVED

(8 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstain)

The planning permission be approved.