Agenda item

Installation of vehicular crossover and creation of hardstanding (part retrospective).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the application and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for the installation of vehicular crossover and creation of hardstanding (part retrospective). Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner, with 24 signatures from residents living in The Green spoke in objection  the application. The petitioner explained that around The Green parking was already extremely limited, particularly in the evenings, during the weekends and also as a result of nearby streets having parking management schemes. The area was also used by students and holiday makers who parked their cars for long periods, causing additional parking stress. If permission was given to this drop curb, it would displace 10 -12 other vehicles that belonged to residents for just one vehicle to be parked on a driveway. Parking in the area was not ideal, however, neighbours worked together to self-govern the parking provision to ensure everyone could park their cars. Prior to the commencement of this planning process, there had been no issues or targeted parking tickets. Parking in the turning head was much less disruptive than parking around The Green. The turning head had been used on The Green for years and the petitioner submitted that it was wide enough to drive around it and allow access for vehicles. Two petitions were submitted at the same time, the other petition sought to review the parking issues on The Green for a longer term solution for residents. The petitioner hoped that the planning committee would refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendations.

In response to a Member’s question about whether the Council had responded in relation to the parking issues raised, the petitioner confirmed that it had not. The Chairman clarified that this was a matter that would need to be considered outside of Committee and encouraged Ward Councillors to take this forward.

The applicant addressed the Committee and provided a chronology of events.  The applicant applied to the highways dropped kerbs team for approval of a vehicle crossing on 7 November 2017, by completing the online application, which did not notify her that she needed to apply for planning permission. The approval for the domestic vehicle crossing was confirmed in writing on 3 December 2017. Following this, the applicant received a quotation for work and instructed a company to commence work; on the basis the application had been granted.  The work had been completed in majority and only 5% of the work still remained outstanding. The applicant informed the Committee that on 14 February 2018, she received an email from a project engineer stating that the application had been approved prematurely and planning permission was required. No prior notification or stipulation had been indicated previously. A further email was received on 16 February 2018 which confirmed that the application had been approved ahead of planning permission and such an error was due to an internal process failure. The email advised that all work should cease. The applicant submitted a further application for planning permission on 7 March 2018 and explained that she had not been reimbursed for any costs that she paid and sought to readiness the situation without causing any further delay, stress and anxiety. The applicant asked for the application to be approved, allow the work to continue with the original permission granted or be reimbursed for her costs.

The Chairman read in to the record a statement from the local Ward Councillor, Councillor Mills, which stated:

“Unfortunately I am unable to attend in person this evening; however I would like to add my support to the petitioners in objecting to this application.  As has been set out in the report, Maygoods Green is subject to high levels of on street parking stress, and given the lack of public transport nearby there is a large reliance from residents on vehicle usage. The location of this property is in a corner of Maygoods Green, which contains the access to 4 maisonettes and a further 3 family homes.  Hopefully images shown to you by officers will show the current parking situation in this corner, which has been self-governed responsibly by neighbours over the years.  Adding a dropped kerb here would remove the parking possibility for all of these cars and there is nowhere else on the Green for them to be displaced to. I trust members see the detrimental impact this proposal would have, and trust they will follow the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.”

The Chairman reminded the Committee that many matters raised were outside of the Committee’s remit but advised Members to solely consider the planning application and any material planning considerations raised in accordance with the policies and guidance given.

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee that illegal parking was not a relevant planning consideration. The planning considerations were mentioned in the report and reiterated that the application needed to be determined on it merits in accordance with policies and guidance. The Legal Advisor clarified that the Committee ought not to take in to account unlawful parking spaces.

The Head of Planning confirmed that there would be the loss of one legal parking space. The Transport and Aviation Manager informed the Committee that there were concerns regarding road safety, the self governing arrangements and the dimensions of the turning heads. The Transport and Aviation Manager explained to the Committee why the cars in the images provided in the presentation showed unsafe parking and clarified that there would be a loss of one parking space.

Members asked for clarification on how many spaces would be lost. Officers confirmed that the turning head currently provided legal parking for two vehicles. With the drop curb that would reduce to one vehicle, the other vehicle would be able to park off street.

Members sympathised with residents, particularly given the additional parking stress from students, commuters and holidaymakers. Members accepted that this reduced the amount of available parking for residents and commended residents for working together to manage parking in the area. However, there were concerns regarding the accessibility of emergency vehicles being able to access properties, the accessibility for people with disabilities and the unsafe parking arrangements in the area. The main concern was safety and the area urgently needed sorting out by way of a parking management scheme.

Members questioned whether it would be detrimental to highways safety if the Committee was to approve the application. Officers confirmed that road safety would be reduced.

Members asked for clarification on whether this would create an undesirable precedent. Officers confirmed that this application had been discussed at length and the recommendation for approval took into account a number of factors such as unsafe parking and potential changes to the current arrangements. It would be preferable for residents to apply to the Council for a parking management scheme.

Members proposed to overturn the officer’s recommendation on the grounds of road safety and add an informative for the Council to help residents with the parking situation. Members also delegated to the Head of Planning to check that no additional conditions needed to be added.

When put to a vote, the officer's recommendation was overturned and Members agreed the above approval reasons. There were seven votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED:

1)         That the application be approved.

2)         That the Head of Planning clarify whether any additional conditions need to be added, subject to the agreement of the Chairman and Labour Lead.