Agenda item

MP introduced the proposal as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Chard due to high level of local concern about parking and highways safety issues.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Jon Hayes, local resident, in objection

Represents residents of 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 75, 77, 79, 83, 100 and 102 Leckhampton Road, who formally object to the application because of adverse impact on parking for immediate neighbours, concerns for safety of all Leckhampton Road users (including dental patients),  and loss of a prime residential property setting an uneasy precedent in this residential area.  The highways report suggests 16-47 potential parking spaces in the immediate vicinity, but neighbours beg to differ – a map has been provided to show that objections to the proposal come from immediate neighbours, who experience obstructed driveways on a daily basis which can only get worse if the application is permitted.  Residents challenge the proposal that only two additional parking spaces are needed and ask why Leckhampton Road and Southcourt Drive should become the de factor car park for Arnica, without concern for other residents, or their friends and family needs.  It is not an equitable proposition, and would question whether any consideration has been given to the additional car parking needs of the 33 new dwellings at Leckhampton Place.

Leckhampton Road will become more dangerous for all parties.  Long-standing residents question the number of accidents and incidents listed in the highways report – many go unreported and every resident has experienced near misses as a result of obscured vision in accessing Leckhampton Road.  Cars parked between houses mean that residents are forced to the opposite carriageway to enter the road, and cars are often seen using the pavement to gain safe access.  The dental practice specialises in sedentary work, and sedated patients are often witnessed returning to their cars on the busy main road. 

This is not an exercise in NIMBYism, but a genuine concern from all the immediate neighbours that this is an unsafe and unsuitable application.  A more suitably located premise with appropriate infrastructure could and should be found.

Mr Laurence Hale, applicant, in support

With his partner, has owned and managed the dental business since 2000, treating nervous and phobic patients, including life-changing procedures.  Due to government legislation, the business needs to restructure to survive, proving a ground floor surgery for less mobile patients, a recovery room for sedated patients (no sedated patient is ever allowed to drive from the practice), and a dedicated hygienist surgery to reduce waiting times.  Started looking for alternative premises two years ago, but found suitable property in the area dwindling at an alarming rate, with a lot of commercial premises being converted to residential.  Hired a property consultant to no avail, with landlords reluctant to sign a lease longer than 10 years – which it must be for the business.  To buy another property would involve closing the existing one for at least 8 months, with catastrophic effect on the patients and the business. 

To address neighbours’ concerns, there have been no road traffic incidents or accidents as a result of on-road or patient parking since the business started in 2000.  For the past four months, there have been an average of 14 additional contractor cars and vans from the Kier site parked within 100m of the practice, and no traffic incidents have been reported.  On Planning view, there were 11 contractor vehicles within 100m, and when the Kier site is complete, at least 12 of these spaces will be freed up. A parking survey has been carried out and Gloucestershire Highways has no objection to the proposal.  However, to address neighbours’ concerns, two domestic spaces have been freed up for drop-off and pick-up; a considerate parking A-board installed; a considerate parking poster displayed; a parking reminder to all patients via text and email the day before their appointment, and eight staff car-parking spaces negotiated at the Norwood Arms. 

In summary, the net increase in vehicles on the road will be negligible.  The planning officer supports the application, and if approved, will safeguard a valuable community service and eight existing jobs as well as creating four new ones.

Member debate:

BF:  will support the proposal.  Parking has already been discussed tonight.  The dental practice he attends does not provide parking; it isn’t the dentist’s responsibility where patients park.  The representations include pictures of cars parked on double yellow line but this is not the dentist’s problem.  It is more of a parking problem – everyone wants cars, sometimes three per house, and this has nothing to do with the operation of the dental practice.  The dentist provides a service, and providing parking is not essential for that.  The highways authority isn’t aware of accidents or near misses on Leckhampton Road.  This application should be approved, and this good dental practice supported.

PB:  uses a dentist further down Leckhampton Road; attends two or three times a year and has never had any problem parking.  As BF has said, it isn’t the dentist’s problem.  This application is a sound proposal for the viability of the business, and as the applicant has said, the alternative is not there.  It is a local business for local people.  The applicant has also made additional arrangements for staff to park nearby.

KS:  has sympathy for the neighbours, but no problem with the application.  On Planning View, noted a decking area at the rear – will this be accessible for staff? Will obscure glass be used for the doors and windows, to protect both patients’ and neighbours’ privacy?

AC:  the applicant has made considerable efforts to address the parking problem, which does exist in this area.  Will support the proposal.

MP, in response:

-       to KS, there is no condition regarding staff access to the decking, and the dentist is proposing blinds at the windows rather than obscure glass.  The impact on amenity is not unacceptable.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT