Agenda item

Granted planning permission as recommended subject to amending Condition 1 to require that if the land is not used solely as ancillary resident’s parking then it should only be used for ancillary amenity space in accordance with a detailed layout including appropriate surface treatment, boundary fencing/ access controls, and waste/recycling facilities

PROPOSAL:

Variation of planning permission reference 90/0669 dated 14/06/1990 for erection of a block of five flats and formation of vehicular access and parking to secure the development as parking permit-free

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) with reference to the supplementary report fopr a house at the rear of the existing building clarified the issues raised at the site meeting.  Members heard that the application was previously withdrawn as it was unlikely to be supported by officers but that the current application had to be considered on its merits. Any proposalto develop the space totherearofthe existing blockofflatswouldrequire separate planning permission and be subjectto localconsultation.  He continued that although some waste was evident on site, it appeared not to be of a scale to merit planning enforcement.  He however recommended condition 1 be amended to require  that the space be used for a laid out amenity space for residents if it was not used for resident’s parking.

Caroline Charlton in objecting to the proposal stated that key considerations of clarity or certainty of the use of the space, waste and the impact of off-street parking on residents’ safety had not been addressed.  

Peter North (applicant’s agent) in setting the background context, stated that there had been on-going issues about the site in regards to waste, fly tipping, cleaning and associated costs to the owner of the site.  He clarified that the application sought to improve the amenity of the residents due to the site’s current under-use brought about by good PTAL and controlled parking (CPZ) for the area. The agent continued that the proposal would also result in an improved boundary fencing and access controls with a lockable gate.  In response to questioning he confirmed, after consulting his client, that he was happy for the condition to be changed to require a layout for resident’s amenity use including refuse facilities as this reflected the intended use of the land.

In endorsing the recommendation for approval, members agreed an amended condition 1 to require that if the land was not used solely as ancillary resident’s parking then it should only be used for ancillary amenity space in accordance with the submission of a detailed layout plan including appropriate surface treatment, boundary fencing/ access controls, and waste/recycling facilities

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to amending Condition 1 to require that if the land is not used solely as ancillary resident’s parking then it should only be used for ancillary amenity space in accordance with a detailed layout plan including appropriate surface treatment, boundary fencing/ access controls, and waste/recycling facilities.