Agenda item

Change of use from A1 (retail) to C3 (residential) use. Creation of additional residential unit. External alterations (resubmission of DM/19/00291/FPA)

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an

application for a change of use from A1 (retail) to C3 (residential) use. Creation of additional residential unit. External alterations (resubmission of DM/19/00291/FPA) at 96 Wheatbottom, Crook (for copy see file of minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

Councillor Reed Local Member had submitted a statement to be read which confirmed her views on the application.  The property had been unoccupied for several years, standing derelict and unsightly. Bringing it into use would benefit the whole community and therefore she asked that the application be approved

Councillor Patterson, Local Member, presented Members with a slideshow which included site photographs.

She gave a history of the site which was last occupied in 1881 according to census information.  Wheatbottom was part of Helmington Row, not Crook. The site had been identified for demolition on the old district plan, to put a road through, it was inhabitable and had not been used for many years.  The ground floor had most recently been a convenience store with storage and before that it had been a grooming parlour, an office, a betting shop, a grocers, a general dealers, and a printers.

A previous planning application had raised concerns over parking and the issues remained.  The main objection was with regards to the lack of parking.  The building was on the A690 and on viewing photographs of the highway, she confirmed that there were no vehicles parked on the road as this was a dangerous road having had three recorded accidents in three months.

There was no on-street parking, however there was an area adjacent to the public house nextdoor which was land owned by the Council and maintained by the landlord of the public house.  This was a required access route for deliveries to the public house and access to the garage to the rear, and it was the main access for the allotment holders.  It could also not be relied upon as it could be purchased and fenced off at any time and she confirmed that the pub had enquired about buying the land.

There was a private residential street, Hanover Gardens opposite the development, with private residential parking which was enforced by the housing association.  Ravensworth Court was to the rear which also had no available parking.  To the side of the property there was a grassed area of public open space, owned by the Council and she suggested the applicant could not ask for permission for an approved access route which would then allow for parking spaces to be created to the rear. 

Councillor Patterson referred to the NPPF tables 7 and 8 and confirmed the total number of parking spaces per dwelling required for apartments and houses that had only communal parking provision as being a minimum of three, for this application and for apartments and houses that had in-curtilage parking provision, there was an expectation of four.  This dwelling had no communal or in-curtilage parking, there was no off-street parking, and there was no control over whether future tenants had vehicles.

The application was contrary to the both the NPPF’s parking recommendations and the Wear Valley District Local Plan which sought to protect highway safety. 

The Highways Authority had assessed the site as having adequate off-street parking, but according to policy adequate parking would consist of in-curtilage parking spaces.

Councillor Patterson confirmed that the NPPF view when considering reduced parking was that it was important to recognise that developments with reduced parking could have an unacceptable impact on existing on-street parking, and also on the amenity enjoyed by existing residents.  This application would impact on a business which had been trading for many years. 

Despite being within walking distance of the Town Centre, the apartments could attract tenants with two to four vehicles and should Members be minded to approve, Councillor Patterson asked for a condition to include some sort of parking provision in accordance with the NPPF.

In summary the application

•      Reliance on off-street Parking of which there was none

•      Was contrary to NPPF and Wear Valley DLP Policy H18

•      Highways had objected to the original application on parking grounds

•      It was not part of the town centre

•      Negative impact on the landlord of the Public House, Allotment Holders and neighbouring residents

The Principal DM Engineer confirmed that he could not dispute some of the issues raised with regards to parking, however this application was for a dwelling which already had permission associated with a ground floor business and five bedroom accommodation.  If this was to be brought back into use, it had the potential to create more parking demand than what the application would create. 

The view of the Highways Officer was that the development was in a sustainable location, within 400 metres of the town centre, with good public transport links.  There was no guarantee that the development would result in an additional four cars, but it could not result in any – there was an expectation that tenants in a property of this type would walk and when marketed, this would not appeal to tenants who had multiple cars due to the lack of associated parking spaces.  With regards to the Council owned land adjacent to the Public House and currently used as a car park, this could be purchased and fenced off at any time and would result in customers and allotment holders having to park on the street.

When assessing the impact, it was not deemed to be severe enough to sustain an objection.  Should parking problems arise in future, the Principal DM Engineer confirmed that the Council could consider putting waiting restrictions in place.

Councillor Brown agreed that highway safety was compromised, and she had experienced the impact of vehicles parking over private driveways.

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that should Members go with the alternative and refuse the application, this building may never be developed and the benefits outweighed the negative impact so he moved the recommendation to approve as outlined in the report.

Councillor Jewell considered this a small development and it would bring a decaying building back into use.  He acknowledged that should it be brought back into use, there would be more parking issues than would be associated with a two bedroom flat and he therefore seconded the recommendation to approve.

Councillor G Huntington agreed that a highways objection was unsustainable.

Resolved:

That the application be APPROVED with the conditions outlined in the report.