Agenda item

 

Application Number:			16/01994/FUL
Location:	53 St Georges Drive Cheltenham Gloucestershire
Proposal:	Drop kerb to provide access with gravel hardstanding
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		14	Update Report:		[transcript of applicant’s public speech]

 

MJC introduced the application as above, to create off-street parking for two cars.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Willingham, in response to the high level of local interest in relation to parking concerns.  The report sets out that this issue has been considered.  The recommendation is to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking: 

Ms Julie Fisher, neighbour, in objection 

A total of 14 neighbours have objected to this proposal .  St George’s Drive is comprised of 67 two-bedroomed maisonettes; the ground floors ones have street facing front garden and rear garden; the top ones just have a rear garden.  As a result, most people park on the road, other than some properties on the roundabout, and two properties with planning permission to convert their gardens to drives. During the daytime and holidays, the street is quite quiet, but in the evening and at night, it is full, sometimes impossible to find a parking space.  With this proposal, two on-street spaces will be lost to provide two private spaces.  The current tenant only has one vehicle to one parking space is lost to the street.  There is an average of one car per household. As only ground floor maisonettes have the opportunity to convert their front gardens, residents of the top maisonettes lose the chance to park near their property.  This was acknowledged when a previous application was permitted, though the officer stated that each case must be considered on its own merits.  Many residents consider the tipping point has now been reached, and current parking difficulties in the road will be further exacerbated by knock-on effect of the parking permit scheme in adjacent roads, coming into effect in July.  In addition, the removal of front gardens spoils the appearance of the street, and affects wildlife.  The loss of two more parking spaces is more than the street can bear.  To sum up, this proposal is unfair to top floor maisonettes, will reduce the number of on-street parking spaces, and will be detrimental to wildlife and the appearance of the street.

 

 

Mrs Carol Gilbert, applicant, in support (not present at meeting) 

Transcript of speech: 

 

I believe mine is only the third Application of this kind which does not seem excessive given the number of properties in the road and I understand that neither the Planning nor Highways Depts. have an issue with it. 

 

From the residents point of view, I would suggest the real problem emanates from the fact that three other properties, Nos. 29,35 & 41, have converted to off street parking without consent. .

 

I have read the various objections and feel that comments regarding detriment to the appearance of the street are not relevant as brand new gravel with a stone front edge could only be an improvement to the existing and I am sure any wildlife would be happy with it.  As to the idea that I would expect any tenant to pay for the work, I cannot imagine where that came from, or indeed that I intend to sub-let; these remarks are totally groundless.  You will have noted during your site visit that work has not commenced as has been suggested.

 

I have followed correct procedure by applying for consent and paying the relevant fee and it seems neither fair nor reasonable that I should be penalised because other people have flouted the rules. 

 

I would ask the Committee to consider that, if it is felt mine would be one too many, a fairer option might be to make those who have not complied with regulations reinstate on street parking and apply in the correct manner.

 

Thank you for your time

 

 

Councillor Willingham, in objection 

This is a difficult application for Members to decide, but it is evident from the number of objections that there is considerable public interest, which is why he requested a committee decision.  As a liberal, is cautious about depriving anyone of the right to develop their home as they see fit, but this is a case where the rights of the individual are outweighed by the needs of the wider community.  The application appears to be swapping one on-road parking space for one off-road, but is not that simple.  If permitted, the owner of the ground floor flat gains not only any off-road parking spaces but also the sole ability to park further vehicles on the road blocking the access, to the detriment of residents of the upstairs maisonettes.  There is a lack of clear planning policy on which to refuse this application, but would suggest that policy CP4(a) can be used as the primary reason, as it will cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the area.  The planning officer has been cautious and used a restrictive interpretation of this policy, only considering the items specifically listed in Note 1 of the policy, but other items, such as parking, can be used; if this and other similar applications are permitted, residents of the upper maisonettes could end up with no parking space at all.  Secondary grounds for refusal are Policy CP4 (c) and (d), due to the potential for low level crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour resulting from the ‘parking wars’ which could arise from these divisive applications.  Has to deal with this in other parts of his ward, and expects other Members face similar issues in their wards.    Urges the Committee to take notice of the significant level of opposition to this proposal and the cumulative consequences of these detrimental planning applications.  Believes there can be equitable, negotiated solutions between neighbours to these parking problems, but these are not something that can be conditioned by planning. 

 

 

Member debate: 

KS:  all occupiers of the street will be affected by any reduction in parking, and this is not mentioned in the report.  This proposal will take away from others the option to park near their homes, which is a loss of amenity. 

 

BF:  is the proposed drop kerb going to be the full width of the property?  Does it need to be? 

 

MJC, in response: 

-        Yes, it will be the full width of the property; 

-        To KS, regarding loss of amenity, the report talks about the convenience of parking near to home, and officers grappled with this application for some time for that reason.  They understand the concerns of residents, and recognise that a tipping point may come – some drop kerbs will already have been approved, but officers will consider that any more will be unacceptable; this is not uncommon in planning; 

-        This application will result in a loss of on-road parking in St George’s Drive, and installing a drop kerb and off-street parking is not an option for the occupants of first floor maisonettes.  However, officers do not consider that the balance has been tipped yet, and are trying to consider the convenience of being able to park close to home; 

-        Planning guidance doesn’t allow for this.  Officers have taken the advice of County Highways, that this drop kerb is acceptable and tipping point has not yet been reached.  A lot of residents of the town can’t park in front of their houses.  Is this an amenity issue?  No – it is nice to have, and convenient, but the application cannot be refused on these grounds. 

 

PT:  this street is in her ward, and parking has always been a nightmare.  If we don’t approve a legal planning application, we will be being very unfair to the owner, as there are a number of parking stations in the road which have been installed without planning permission – we should be taking them to court and getting them changed.  Is not sure where to go with this, and would like a steer on how it should be handled.  When the flats were built on the corner  - St George’s Gate – one space was provided for all the flats, as there was a government directive at the time that if a property was within one mile of the town centre, there was no need for parking spaces.  As a result, a lot of people there are parking on the pavement and on yellow lines – luckily for the residents, tolerant traffic wardens understand the situation.  Has huge sympathy but doesn’t know where to go. Councillor Willingham is kind to have brought this to Committee as it shows the difficult situation we are in.  Considers that the tipping point has already been reached – parking is really bad, as Members saw on Planning View – but doesn’t know what to do. 

 

MC:  also has sympathies both ways, and doesn’t want to see gardens used as parking spaces, and further on-street spaces taken away.  As PT has said, this application has been submitted properly, yet the applicant has pointed out that elsewhere in the road, residents have converted their gardens without permission.  If permission isn’t granted, this applicant and other owners of ground-floor maisonettes might do the same. There are too many cars here and not enough parking spaces, and the loss of front gardens is regrettable.  What can CBC do about it?   

 

CH:  following on MJC’s comments about the expectation of having a car parking space close to home, the difference here is that for existing residents there will be a loss of an amenity they thought they had.  It is a difficult situation, and this isn’t the only place in Cheltenham where it is happening.  We  need clearer guidance about how to deal with this going forward.  Enforcement action against those people who have done the work illegally also needs to be addressed.  There could be more cooperation if people took less frontage into their drop kerbs, so other residents could still park on the street

 

SW:  is minded to refuse this application.  DW has made a good case regarding loss of amenity – officers can advise on how strong an argument this is – but will support a refusal on those grounds if possible.  The applicant could consider a drop kerb only half the width of the house; that way an extra space would be provided, as there would be room for two cars off-road and one on-road.  And if people have converted their frontage without planning permission and without an official drop kerb, there is nothing to stop other residents from parking in front of their properties, blocking their access.  This applicant has applied for a drop kerb, obviously hoping for official permission, but if it is refused, hopefully she will take Members’ view on board; maybe she could use half the drive, and come to some agreement with the upstairs neighbour.  It will probably come to the point in this road where all the residents of the first-floor maisonettes could find themselves with nowhere to park, and an awfully long walk to their cars.  Is minded to vote against this, and hopes the applicant comes back with something more sensitive.   

 

GB:  would remind Members to keep their comments short; this is a simple application, and Members shouldn’t concern themselves with redesigning it. 

 

RH:  understood that not all drop kerbs need planning permission – some can be done under permitted development?  Could officers advise on this? 

 

BF:  lives in an upstairs maisonette himself; there are gaps between the blocks which provide shared access and a drop kerb between the two blocks could provide parking for two cars, with co-operation between residents – with most maisonettes, the upstairs is the freeholder of downstairs and vice versa, for this reason.  These were built when cars were much smaller and narrower, however, with a garages at the back, accessed by the shared driveway.  A solution would be that the drop kerb is not the full width of the property. 

 

JP:  agrees that on the face of it this is a simple application if it wasn’t for the complication of on-street parking in the area. Is minded to refuse.  As DW has said, these applications have the potential to give rise to a lack of cohesion in the community; people need to get together to solve the issue, and permissions such as this will open the floodgates. 

 

HM:  over the years has been on many planning views to view proposals where the main concern was parking.  The speaker mentioned that Members saw the road in the early afternoon, but it was horrendous; went back to see it in the evening and it was even worse.  Has every sympathy with all the residents, and can imagine their anxiety on coming home from work every day not knowing where or whether they will be able to park.  Will move to refuse on Local Policy CP4 for loss of amenity for local residents, and particularly for those living in the upstairs maisonettes. 

 

KS:  the previous two speakers have anticipated most of her comments, but regarding the tipping point and when this might be reached – was involved in the 2004 election and parking here was a huge issue then.  What is the tipping point?  Will it be the next drop kerb application?  Will another ten applications be considered OK?  The community says tipping point has already been reached. 

 

MJC, in response: 

-        To RH, regarding PD rights, drop kerbs can be considered under permitted development rights if they are installed at the same time as something else which is permitted development, such as a a driveway, but this only applies to householder applications, which this is not, as it is a maisonette.  Any drop kerbs should have planning permissions; there are three or four in the road with no record of any planning permission.  What recourse is available?  If the drop kerbs have been in place for more than four years, they are immune from any enforcement action, and it isn’t possible to ascertain or prove how long they have been there; 

-        On the issue of amenity, understands where Members are coming from; officers discussed this issue for a long time, and considered whether there were any grounds for refusal and whether the tipping point has been reached.  If Members think that it has, refusing on CP4 would not be an unreasonable thing to do.  Officers expected there to be this debate, and if the applicant goes to appeal, it will be interesting to receive the advice of the Inspector.  Officers are not convinced that CBC would win the appeal, but a refusal would not be straying into unreasonable behaviour territory, so costs are extremely unlikely.   

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit 

0 in support 

12 in objection 

1 abstention 

REFUSED 

 

 

CH:  on the point of enforcement action and whether it is worth enforcing something which has been in place for a year or two – particularly against an individual resident – the issue is a matter of respect for the planning process.  This is a tough decision but it must be tackled, on drop kerbs, satellite dishes, non-SUDS driveways etc, all installed without permission.  The question may be asked as to whether it is worth enforcing, and it might seem petty, but it will result in more respect for the planning process.  The debate should be started. 

 

GB:  Members will be receiving enforcement training in the near future.  The issue is the proportionate use of enforcement. 

 

PT:  as DW said, St George’s Drive is not the only place where this issue occurs.  We need to have the discussion.