Agenda item

Change of Use of Open Space to Form Land for the Display and Sale of Motor Vehicles Including the Provision of Tarmac Hardstanding (Resubmission)

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Durham City Area Office) which recommended approval.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that Members had visited the site that day and gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report.

Councillor Turnbull, Ward Member explained that Stoneacre had previously been owned by two other car retailers which had arrangements in place for customers and staff to park at the rear of the garage.  Stoneacre had taken over the site and expanded its business which resulted in cars parking on the main road and side streets.  The lay bys in front of Moorside had been built for the tenants of those houses but they couldn’t park their cars because of the overspill from the garage. 

The greenbelt land was owned by Durham Villages Regeneration Company and it was disappointing that it would be disappearing.  It was felt that car parking for customers and staff at the front with hedging to screen it from the road could be a more suitable solution.

The business had outgrown the area and if extra parking was agreed, he felt that more cars would be for sale and the customer parking would move onto the main street causing even more havoc than at present.  There were over 20/30 cars parking daily on the highway.  Problems were experienced by parents trying to get their children to school safely, pushchairs and wheelchairs were having to egress onto the main road because they couldn’t use the footpath because of parked cars.  The school patrol had resigned after 22 years as she felt she couldn’t keep the children safe any longer.

Stoneacre had been approached on numerous occasions and been requested to move the cars off the highway.  The current situation was unacceptable and he requested details of conditions that would be imposed to ensure staff and customers adhered to allocated parking arrangements.

Councillor Turnbull commented that he had recently been travelling on public transport which had been held up for 15 minutes as it had been unable to turn the corner because a car transporter had blocked the highway whilst unloading at the garage.

Mr Longstaff explained that he was the agent for the applicant who recognised the need for a resolution to the car parking problems.  The application sought to provide a suitable solution and would allow for much needed improvements.  Car parking would be designated on site for staff and customers to the rear together with MOT and storage.  There was also sufficient space for the transporter to unload.  Highways Officers had raised no objections although he was aware that the Highways Committee had recently approved no waiting, no loading restrictions in front of the premises.  It was felt that the planning application and the highways restrictions that were to be implemented would go a significant way to addressing the highway problems that currently existed.

Mr Glenwright, Highways Officer explained that the Highways Committee held in June 2011 had approved extensive no waiting, no loading restrictions in front of Stoneacre.  There would be a no waiting limit in front of the garage although there would be some parking allowed on the main road.  Parking on the main road acted as traffic calming, lowered vehicle speeds and restricted speeding.  The highways measures would be implemented in September 2011 and be monitored and reviewed.  Should further restrictions be required then further reports would be considered by the Highway Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that since the report was written, five new letters of objection had been received although there were no new grounds other than the ones reported.  There were 70 car parking spaces at present that were uncontrolled and the application was submitted to alleviate concerns of local residents and crucially control how the spaces were apportioned.  This would ensure a set amount of spaces for customers and staff.

Councillor Taylor explained that he was the local Member and was disappointed with the Planning Officers report as he thought the application would address the highway problems that were being experienced.   He believed that the reason for the application was to increase sales and not to address highway safety.  The highway restrictions that had been agreed by the Highways Committee had been as a result of consultation with local Members, the Parish Council and residents groups.

He had received numerous complaints and reports from residents since he became a Councillor in 2003 regarding the garage.  Stoneacre was welcomed into the community and he wished it to thrive and provide jobs for the area.  The garage had never initiated any ideas to resolve the highway problem and he had suggested at one stage car sharing for employees.  It was felt that the garage had no community responsibility.

Councillor Taylor explained that he had seen wheelchair users forced to use the carriageway as there were cars parked on the dropped kerbs and mothers unable to pass safely with pushchairs. He had counted 25 cars in relation to the garage on the site visit that morning.  On numerous occasions he had asked the garage to move cars but they just paid lip service and took no action.

The school patrol crossing had resigned her post as she felt she was unable to keep the children safe.  He felt that the proposals would exacerbate the problems, he had never known any business to extend the sales area if they didn’t want to extend sales.  The car park at the rear was insufficient at present and the increased sales and traffic would make matters worse.

Local residents had to live with the disturbance caused by the number of cars parked.  It took approximately 6 weeks to get the garage to turn the lights off in the showroom during the night and felt that there needed to be a much improved relationship with the garage.

Councillor Robinson queried if the customers could park at the front and staff at the rear be placed into a planning condition.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that condition 3 reserved agreement of layout at a later date and there was a potential for a compromise in placement of the spaces should Members approve the application.

Councillor Taylor commented that the Parish Council’s suggestion of a customer car park to the front with suitable screening would be acceptable but must be strictly adhered to with a planning condition.

The Chair queried if the suggestion would be acceptable to the company.  Mr Longstaff explained that he would be happy to negotiate or defer to have discussions with local Members and the applicant.

Councillor Blakey suggested that the application be deferred pending further negotiations with the applicant, local Members and Planning Officers on a mutually acceptable scheme.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred.