Agenda item

EP explained that this proposal is for an extension to an existing terrace on Gloucester Road, opposite the train station.  The recommendation is to refuse on design grounds, the impact on amenity and lack of parking  There is an update on this third refusal reason – the applicant submitted a parking report yesterday, stating that this is a sustainable location so close to the train station, but officers still recommend refusal for the first two reasons.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Holliday, in objection

Residents’ concerns are well documented in the papers, but would remind Members that the application site fronting onto Gloucester Road is only half of the development site.  Development of this site may be a good thing but it needs to be right for the site, and have adequate parking provision and access.  On planning view, Members will have seen that parking in Roman Road is a big problem for residents, partly due to its proximity to the railway station – cars are sometimes parked for two weeks while their owners go on holiday – leaving residents unable to park in their own road.  Permitting this application with no parking provision would make it even worse.  There are concerns about access for emergency and refuse vehicles to the site, and highway safety issues including access and egress to the site by construction vehicles and the danger of the additional traffic to residents and members of the public using the road.  Residents and councillors remember too well the dangers cause in this respect by unlicensed car lot whose enforcement to cease trading went on for far too long.  If the applicant had carried out a parking survey as requested, these access and highways issues would have been highlighted.  Urges committee to strongly consider residents’ valid objections and refuse the application.

Member debate:

MS:  if there is a change to the refusal reasons as stated, with regard to traffic and parking, considers that Members should have a proper update before they make their decision.

RG:  the NPPF talks about severe impact of new dwellings, but this scheme provides no off-street parking.  It may be that none of the occupants will have a car, but if only half of them do, where will they park?  The lay-by is full of cars of people going to the shop, Roman Road is full.  After 8.00pm there will be nowhere to park.  This scheme will have a severe impact on on-street parking, and maybe should be deferred to hear what the developer proposes to do about it.

RW:  it would be absurd to remove the third refusal reason, as anyone who ever needs to park near the station is well aware of the acute problems there – it is always extremely difficult to park.  Would vote against the proposal if this was the only reason for refusal, but there are two other reasons as well – six flats on this space is a serious over-development.

BD:  lives nearby and suffers from commuters parking on the street.  A definite no-no.

PJ:  Officers don’t often support on-street parking, so is happy to go with their recommendation here.

MPower, in response:

-          this is a sustainable location – next to the station, on bus routes, convenient for cycling and walking  - and the NPPF is clear that this is the type of area where development should be;

-          in another similar application, where there was even evidence of accidents to back up the case, the Inspector allowed an appeal and awarded costs;

-          in this sustainable location, to refuse on parking grounds would have policy support – the other refusal reasons are stronger;

-          regarding highway safety, reminded Members of the Sherborne Arms – fly parking, cruising, road safety concerns – but the Local Plan said that no parking provision here was acceptable, and in fact set maximum parking standards;

-          understands Members’ concerns but is worried about costs at appeal from similar decisions, so his advice is to concentrate on the more substantive refusal reasons.

CC:  is confused.  If an Inspector is likely to support two out of three refusal reasons, why is there concern that inclusion of the third may dilute that decision?

MPower, in response:

-          all refusal reasons must stand scrutiny independently.

CC:  it only loses emphasis if the argument to the Inspector is not as strong as it could be.

MPower, in response:

-          the refusal must be contrary to highway safety

AM:  fails to understand. If the Inspector agrees that CP7 and CP4 are valid refusal reasons but not TP1, why would this result in costs?

PT:  thinks this is crazy.  Even in a sustainable location, people will still want to have cars – why can’t we get this point over to the Inspectors and make them understand?  University students have cars which are parked in streets and prevent residents’ parking in St Paul’s, Market Street and Bloomsbury Street.  Parking is almost as bad at the station.  Proximity to the station does not make this a sustainable location.

KS:  PT has made her point.  This is not a sustainable location.  People from outside the area use it as a car park.  When an Inspector from outside the area makes a decision as to whether this is a sustainable location, this must be taken into account.  People need cars for all sorts of reasons, and this development offers them nowhere to park.

PJ:  locations are described as sustainable to encourage people not to use their cars.  This was included in the Local Plan but the no-drive policy has clearly not worked.  Is happy for the third condition to be left in and to support officers.

RW:  also thinks the condition should be left in.  If Members or Officers want a highways safety issue to add to this to be more comfortable, they should take a walk down Roman Road, where cars are parked on both sides with nowhere to pass and appalling visibility, resulting in road rage and major danger to pedestrians, cyclists and all other road users.  It is a death trap, and a further 3-6 cars will add to this appalling situation.

EP, in response:

-          if this application is refused and goes to appeal, officers are duty bound to substantiate all refusal reasons.  Costs are awarded if the Inspector considers any of the refusal reasons to be unreasonable, and additional consultation advice may be needed if a refusal reason can’t be backed up.  So even if the appeal is dismissed, there is still a risk of costs.

PT: if the Inspector agrees to the extra flats being built, what about access for building materials etc.?  The only way is by driving over the pavement.

EP, in response;

-          developers have various ways to get round this;

-          if the application goes to appeal, conditions can be suggested should it be allowed.

CC:  the officer recommendation is to refuse for the first two reasons in the report.  Members would like to include all three refusal reasons.  Someone needs to move to refuse on all three reasons, bearing in mind the officer warning that this may give rise to costs against CBC, as Members are basing their argument on extreme local knowledge.

BF:  agreed to do this.

Vote on BF’s move to refuse on all three of the refusal reasons as set out in the report

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE

The meeting ended at 9.30pm