Agenda item - BH2011/03764 - 27-29 Pembroke Crescent

Application for removal of condition 8 of application BH2011/02434 (Conversion of existing rest home (C2) into 2no six bedroom dwellings incorporating demolition of existing rear extension, removal of roof terrace and external fire escape with associate alterations and erection of new single storey rear extension) which states that the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time as a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide that the residents of the development, other than those residents with disabilities who are Blue Badge Holders, have no entitlement to a resident's parking permit. 

Recommendation – REFUSE

(1)                   Application for removal of condition 8 of application BH2011/02434 (Conversion of existing rest home (C2) into 2no six bedroom dwellings incorporating demolition of existing rear extension, removal of roof terrace and external fire escape with associate alterations and erection of new single storey rear extension) which states that the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time as a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide that the residents of the development, other than those residents with disabilities who are Blue Badge Holders, have no entitlement to a resident's parking permit.

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a presentation detailing the application by reference to photographs, and stated that the application sought the removal of condition 8; however, the applicant had lodged an appeal for non-determination and Officers were asking the Committee to express an opinion had this been bought before them for determination. The site was located within a CPZ – zone R - and there was no waiting list - but it was considered the location was sustainable in relation to distance to public transportation. It was highlighted that the relevant policy did not react to demand or capacity, and therefore the applicant’s arguments in relation to demand or capacity were not relevant, and they had not been able to demonstrate that the site did not have access to sustainable transportation. The site had previously been a residential care home, and the two associated staff parking permits had been rescinded. It was recommended that had the appeal not been lodged the Committee would have resolved to refuse the application.

Public Speakers

(3)                   Mr Burgess, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and explained that the planning permission had been for the conversion of the residential care home back into two semi-detached family homes, and it was unlikely that families would be car free. He stated that if the condition were not removed then it was likely that a planning application would have to be submitted and the units further sub-divided into flats. There was no waiting list in the zone, and as the previous residential care home had two business permits there would be no additional stress on the potential number of vehicles parking. Mr Burgess referred to National Planning Policy Framework which stated that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. 

(4)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Hamilton that other properties in the street were entitled to parking permits.

(5)                   Councillor Cox spoke in his capacity as the local Ward Councillor and stated that he was not against a car free development, but asked the Committee to apply a common sense approach to the application as the properties were being returned to their original use as family homes.

(6)                   Councillor Hawtree asked for more information in relation to the current parking situation in the area, and it was explained that there no strain and many spaces were free.

Questions for Officers

(7)                   The Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the condition did not prevent the occupiers owning a car, but they would not be able to apply for a parking permit. It was also advised that the NPPF referred to the importance of promoting sustainable transport, which the car free condition was in accordance with. It was highlighted that the policy was being successfully operated across the city.

(8)                   In response to a query from Councillor Hamilton the distance to the nearest free parking from the site was highlighted.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)                   Councillor Hyde stated it was her belief that the applicant had successfully demonstrated that this application should be treated as an exception to the policy; as the properties were being converted back to family homes and there was a risk the developments would not come forward without the removal of the condition. She stated that there were no objections from neighbours and there was capacity in the CPZ, furthermore a recent decision at appeal had overturned the policy. Councillor Hyde said that the city needed to demonstrate it was not anti-car, but instead encourage sustainable means of transport.

(10)               Councillor Cobb stated that the condition would also prevent any future car ownership at the site for families who may need a car in the future.

(11)               Councillor Wells stated there was no demand for parking in the area, and, as such, he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(12)               Councillor Summers noted she agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hyde and Councillor Cobb and would vote against the Officer recommendation.

(13)               Councillor Deane stated that there was no change to footprint of the buildings and she could not see how any additional stress would be created to local parking amenity.

(14)               The Head of Development Control clarified that the policy had been operating successfully in the city, and that it did not respond to demand within the CPZ.

(15)               On a vote of 10 to 1 it was agreed that had the application come before the Committee for decision the removal of the condition would have been agreed.

175.8    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation but resolves that it would have GRANTED the removal of the condition had the decision been brought to the Committee.

Note 1: Councillor Pidgeon was not present during the consideration or vote on the item.

Note 2: The Head of Development Control explained that the report and the minutes would be forwarded to the Inspector who was currently considering the appeal for non-determination.