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)

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 Area) which recommended approval of the application.

This application had been deferred on 19 July 2011 and the Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report, which included photographs of the site. In presenting the report he referred Members to the following amendment to condition numbered 2:

‘The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following revised plans:

Plan Ref No.                            Description                Date Received

                                            Site Location Plan                  18/5/11

1078-11-002 REV              Proposed Location Plan          21/9/11

F

He also advised that since the report had been circulated a further 4 objections to the application had been received. The objections were similar in nature to those previously received and were as follows:

·        Insufficient staff parking

·        Incongruous appearance

·        The entire boundary should be hidden by shrubs, the 8 proposed would hide nothing

·        The lighting columns should face inwards on the site

·        The garage should not expand

·        The land should be a car park only that was left empty at close of business

·        More traffic

·        Possible traffic accidents

·        Noise

·        Dirt

To conclude he stated that improvements had been made since the last application to address residents’ concerns and waiting restrictions were still to be imposed along Sawmills Lane.The works should be completed in the next couple of weeks.

Mr Hutchinson, objector stated that residents had endured the chaos caused by indiscriminate parking on Sawmills Lane for the last 12 years. The proposed application did not go far enough to resolve the problems and would be detrimental to local residents.

He had hoped that an amicable solution could have been reached to remove all cars from Sawmills Lane but this had not been achieved.

Suggestions made in relation to screening had been ignored and the landscaping scheme proposed was inadequate.

In addition he believed that the proposals would result in vehicles from the bodyshop being parked at the front of the premises which would be unsightly.

The lighting columns created light pollution and he considered that the proposed conditions would not alleviate this.

He continued that the company had never tried to integrate with the community. Residents had tried to be accommodating in order to reach a solution which would benefit the business whilst also meeting the needs of local people.

Mr Longstaff, the applicants’ agent stated that the incorporation of the open space would improve what the applicants currently had in terms of configuration of the site. They had met with the Planning Officers to discuss an appropriate solution to the issues raised by residents.

Dedicated customer parking would be located to the front and they had reduced the number of spaces for the display and sale of vehicles to accommodate this, with staff parking located to the rear. He appreciated the concerns of residents and believed that the proposals put forward would help to address their issues.

The Highways Officer stated that the revised layout was acceptable in highway terms. The inclusion of customer parking and a reduction in the area for sales/display, together with the waiting restriction to be imposed along Sawmills Lane was welcomed.

The Principal Planning Officer (Durham Area) responded to the comments made by Mr Hutchinson and stated that the landscaping scheme was more extensive than the trees displayed on the plan as part of his presentation. Shrub belt and fencing were also proposed, to be agreed on condition.

With regard to the issues raised in relation to parking, it was considered that the proposals would alleviate concerns. Introduction of a waiting restriction would mean that enforcement action could be taken against vehicles indiscriminately parked. The garage had agreed to reduce the number of bays for sales vehicles to accommodate customer cars. A lot of stock was parked to the rear which could not be displayed on the existing small forecourt. Customers would only be parked for short periods at a time and at different times throughout the day. With regard to residents concerns about light pollution, he advised that this would be controlled by a condition which required details of lighting to be submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to the development being brought into use. 

Councillor Taylor stated that he was the local Member and thanked the Chair and his colleagues for deferring the application on 19 July 2011 to progress dialogue with the applicants. He also thanked Councillor Turnbull and the Planning Officers for their work on this.

At the meeting held on 12 September 2011 with the applicants they were invited to look around the premises and at the time he noted that at the rear where staff parking and storage/service/MOT vehicles were proposed, the area was full of new stock. He questioned where these would be parked, especially as the area for sales/display was to be reduced. He had also noted that there were 25 vehicles parked on the highway along Sawmills Lane.

He had a lengthy discussion with the Company Director about the problems experienced by residents, young mothers with pushchairs, wheelchair users and the school crossing patrol.

Currently transporters visited the garage 2 – 3 times per week which exacerbated the problems further.

He continued that residents were on occasions unable to access their own properties and in addition to these problems there were also issues around light, noise and air pollution. He welcomed the business in the area but considered that the company had a responsibility to the community.

Councillor Taylor referred to specific points raised in the Officer’s report and took Members through each. He believed that the purpose of the application was to increase sales, and with this came an increase in the deliveries and number of transporters, thereby adding to the problems on the highway.

He also believed that the application was in contravention of Policies T1 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan, and considered that the proposals would not alleviate the potential for any car parking conflicts on Sawmills Lane. With regard to parking layout it would be difficult to enforce any signage imposed by means of a condition, and in terms of landscaping he considered that Mr Hutchinson’s suggestion for screening to the front could have alleviated the situation. The proposals put forward by the applicants did not mitigate the impact on the visual amenity of the area.

To conclude he had hoped that a more positive outcome could have been achieved with the matter resolved to the benefit of all concerned.

In discussing the application two Members stated that as users of the road they considered it to be dangerous and ‘an accident waiting to happen’.

In response to a question concerning the waiting restriction, A Glenwright advised that the scheme was for no waiting and no loading at any time for a significant length of Sawmills Lane with the exception of a stretch of road in front of the garage. This area would not be restricted as the Traffic Officer felt that if all parking was removed this would increase the speed of traffic along Sawmills Lane.

A Member asked if sustainable drainage had been a consideration in view of the loss of green area. The Principal Planning Officer responded that there was sufficient capacity within existing drainage in the location but confirmed that this was a consideration for developments that did not have access to existing urban drainage.

Prior to determining the application Members considered whether there was any merit in allowing further negotiations to take place between all parties prior to reaching a decision, and it was suggested that the application be deferred again to allow this.

Following discussion it was RESOLVED

That the application be deferred for further discussion/negotiation with the applicant to resolve the residential amenity concerns.