Agenda item

Conversion of first and second floors to 2, two-bedroom flats and 1, one-bedroom flat, involving installation of external staircase at rear first floor level and demolition of single storey rear extension, rear store and detached garage to provide space for the creation of a private communal garden and 5 car parking spaces.

Recommendation : Approval

Conversion of first and second floors to 2, two-bedroom flats and 1, one-bedroom flat, involving installation of external staircase at rear first floor level and demolition of single storey rear extension, rear store and detached garage to provide space for the creation of a private communal garden and 5 car parking spaces.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting made the following points:-

• The petitioner advised the committee that he lived adjacent to proposed development and objected strongly to the application.
• Since the public house had been closed residents had, had peace and quite, with no noise and vandalism to their property.
• Youths congregated outside the shop and the owners do nothing to move them on.
• Due to the location of the parking for the flats, it was felt that they would not be used, thus causing more on street parking.
• Ryefield Avenue was a very busy road and a number of near misses have occurred.
• The access road to the parking spaces was un-adopted and the surface had already been broken up.
• There would be overlooking from the proposed flats to gardens surrounding the site.
• The change of use of the shop had happened without permission and with no thought to residents.
• There had been a number of planning enforcement issues that had not been acted upon.

The agent made the following points:-

• The site was empty and dilapidated and was subject to vandalism and graffiti, pigeons and rats prior to the applicant purchasing the site 3 years ago.
• The building would be enhanced and bought back into the community.
• The proposed flats would provide much needed housing in the area.
• The applicant had met all the officer’s requirements.
• Asked the committee to approve the application as recommended by officers.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting making the following points:-

·        The residents had made very valid points.

·        Referred the committee to the previous application in July 2010 in relation to conversion to residential.

·        There was insufficient level of parking being provided.

·        There was unsatisfactory provision made for servicing the shop

·        This application was the same as previous refused and asked the committee to consider refusal on grounds of pedestrian and highway safety.

The committee raised concerns in relation to the maintenance of the access road and the parking being provided.

Officer’s advised the committee that the access road was outside of the red line site.   The previous owners of the public house had right of access across the road and any maintenance issues would be a civil matter.  The parking being provided was close to the front of the site. And there was a condition was also being added to seek CCTV and secure by design. 

In answer to petitioner comments about the change of use officers advised the committee that the shop use was permitted development and did not require planning permission.  

The committee felt that due to the location of the parking for the flats it was unlikely that residents would use the allocated parking area.   This was likely to increase the pressure for on street parking in the area.

Further concerns were raised in relation to the parking as cars would be reversing out into the access road.  Visibility splays would be restricted to one of the spaces as it was next to a 1.8m wall.

Officers advised that if the committee were concerned a condition could be added to reduce the height of the wall.

The committee were not happy with the parking area as proposed and it was suggested that the application should be deferred for a site visit.

The committees concerns were in regard to the applicant only having right of access and no control over the area.  The committee asked for Legal comments on the access road and comments form the safety by design officer.

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred to enable a site visit, on being put to the vote deferment was agreed.  

Resolved – That the application be Deferred to enable members of the committee to make a site visit.