Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Central

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0305, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out additional comments from 13 Beaconsfield Terrace and 32 Watkin Terrace. He noted that parking was a particular issue but that the existing, lawful uses of the house would attract vehicle use in any case.

Tony Clarke, commented that he believed that the report had been badly written as an issue transferred from WNDC. He thought that the planning history set out in paragraph 4.1 was irrelevant and that the references to advice from an Agent in other paragraphs misleading. He noted that the property did not meet the combined ground and first floor minimum area of  100m2 for conversion to flats. He observed that there were already a number of flat conversions in Watkin Terrace and queried when it would be decided that there were enough. He believed that critical density already existed being exacerbated by the fact that the street was a cul-de-sac. He also believed that the character of the area had already been destroyed by previous planning permissions. He believed that the premise that existing uses would generate comparable car use to this proposal for flats was false; there could be an extra eight or nine vehicles. He urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

Sally Haddon, a local resident, referred to the existing parking problems in Watkin Terrace/ Beaconsfield Terrace that included double parking in the evenings. She observed that the camber in the cul-de-sac also caused problems. There was no residents parking scheme and felt that a majority of residents would not agree to one in any case. She noted that 34 Watkin Terrace had permission for conversion to four flats and that another property in the terrace was up for sale making a potential for 12 flats. She queried whether agreement could be reached as to the number of cars per property and referred to existing problems of rubbish from those properties that had already been converted. She believed that people would not give up cars. She commented that there was no provision for bikes; that there was a need for more family homes and that the residents had had enough.

Councillor Strachan, as local ward Councillor, asked that the Committee refuse the application and noted that parking provision was already oversubscribed and made worse by the residents parking schemes in neighbouring streets. The properties all had narrow frontages. A number of the properties had already changed hands and developers were converting them to flats. The Council needed to listen to the residents. He feared that more owner occupiers would move out. 

Meredith Smart, partner of the applicant, stated that she believed that many of the points raised by Mr Clarke about the previous planning history of the house were irrelevant. The house had previously five occupants with three cars. There was a market for properties close to the town centre where people could walk rather than use a car. These flats were aimed at young professional people. Their intention was to develop the flats to a high standard and to have long term lets. The comments made by other speakers about car usage were speculation. She noted that many residents of Watkin Terrace and Beaconsfield Terrace currently did not have cars or drive. She believed that much of the parking space was taken up by people using the park or who then walked to work in the town centre. In answer to questions Meredith Smart commented that they did not intend to sell the flats but to mange them; that they would not be living there as the accommodation would be unsuitable for their young family and that her idea of spacious was where someone could live comfortably with separate bedroom, living and kitchen areas.

Chad Burnhope, the applicant, stated that he would be managing the build and the tenants subsequently. He accepted that parking was an issue. He had been working on the house since November and had seen people park up and then go to the park or walk off in the direction of the town centre. He believed that a residents parking scheme would help and he thought that it would reduce parking by eight to ten vehicles. He stated that many of the existing residents already did not drive. He accepted that rubbish was an issue but that he could not be held responsible for other landlords; perhaps better advice to tenants was needed. Mr Burnhope thought that the comments made by Mr Clarke about the Council were unfair: the application should be treated the same as any other. In answer to questions Mr Burnhope commented that a secure bin store would be provided on the site of the former shed in the garden; that he would monitor the tenants through monthly visits and the rental agreement; and that the fire escape from the basement would be via a ladder accessed from a removable polycarbonate panel.

The Head of Planning stated that although the planning history set out in the report was not, in this case relevant, it was part of the history of the dwelling. Any previous use as a HIMO for seven or more residents had not been lawful. A site visit had been arranged because of the size of the property and its cul-de-sac location. The Addendum referred to parking matters; disabled parking was a County Council matter. He noted that comments made about whether the flats would be sold or rented or issues concerning other landlords were not relevant to the application. Concerns about fire safety were an issue for Building Regulations.    

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Meredith proposed and Councillor Mason seconded “That consideration of the application be deferred so as to allow the Head of Planning to discuss with the applicant the issues raised by the Committee.”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:     That consideration of the application be deferred so as to   allow the Head of Planning to discuss with the applicant the issues raised by the Committee.