Agenda item

Use of land for car sales, car storage, and staff and customer parking

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Durham Area) in relation to the above application, a copy of which had been circulated.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Principal Planning Officer gave details of a revised statement submitted by the applicant and Members were advised of amendments to condition 3 with regard to the parking layout. The application proposed 15 staff spaces, 22 customer spaces, 30 storage spaces and 27 for car sales.

Councillor J Turnbull, local Member addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents. He advised that local people did not have a problem with the location of the garage in the village but how the business had expanded over the years. Residents experienced problems using the footpath because of indiscriminately parked vehicles and the road was dangerous for pedestrians and for elderly people in particular who crossed the road to visit the doctor’s surgery. Garage vehicles continued to park on the double yellow lines and enforcement measures were not being pursued by Durham County Council. 

Mr Hutchinson, local resident spoke against the application. He stated that parking had not been an issue until the garage gave up the secure site on Littleburn Industrial Estate. He noted that the proposals included an increase in parking for car sales and he believed that cars from the bodyshop and other damaged vehicles would be parked elsewhere. This would have a detrimental effect on the street scene and neighbouring properties.

The landscaping proposed would not soften the impact of the development and unless the Council was prepared to police the site on a daily basis vehicles would continue to park on the unrestricted length of highway. The residents looked forward to close of business at the end of each day when it returned to a quiet, respectable residential area. 

Mr Longstaff, the applicant’s agent stated that the previous proposals had been dismissed on appeal, however the Inspector had outlined a clear way forward and guidance on how the impact could be mitigated. The Inspector’s decision letter referred to the open space as a positive element in the street scene and that it would be possible to mitigate the loss by reducing the area available for car parking and retaining an effective landscaped strip between the car parking/display area and the road.

The revised application addressed the concerns of the Inspector by providing an effective landscaping strip between the car display area and the road. A landscaping scheme was also proposed to mitigate any impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

In respect of other issues raised in the LPA’s Appeal statement, the Inspector had stated that there would be a marked improvement in the living conditions of local residents in relation to parking congestion and highway safety, the proposal would reduce pressure for on-street parking, would assist in the efficient operation of the existing business and whilst there would be a more visible sales area most  of the net gain in the parking area would not increase vehicle display/storage capacity. 

The Inspector’s conclusions should be given significant weight in the determination of the current application. The remodelling of the site would allow for much needed improvements to how the site currently operated and would alleviate the potential for car parking conflicts on Sawmills Lane.

Members discussed the application and Councillor Taylor, local Member stated that having heard the comments of the Principal Planning Officer, local resident, Councillor Turnbull and the applicant’s agent he was of the view that the purpose of the application was not to resolve the parking issues but to increase sales. He wanted the business to thrive and be a part of the community but local Members and residents had tried to work with the garage for many years to reach a solution without success, with the existing restrictions on Sawmills Lane continuing to be ignored. He had concerns for the safety of road users and pedestrians, and if approved the proposals would exacerbate the existing problems experienced.

The development would increase the volume of traffic to the detriment of highway safety with a significant effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties, and the proposals would also have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area. He therefore considered that the proposals contravened Policies T1 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the application proposed 22 customer parking spaces on a visible part of the site away from residential properties, and this should alleviate the obstruction on the highway. As parking would be allocated for specific uses, enforcement action could be pursued if this was disregarded. In response to a question about sustainable drainage Members were advised that existing drainage was adequate and would be further supported by the increased landscaping that was proposed.         

The Highways Officer advised that the concerns expressed by the local Member in relation to the enforcement of the existing restrictions on Sawmills Lane would be referred to the Council’s Enforcement Section.                      

A Member commented that this application was an opportunity for the applicants to resolve the issues at this location. However, having heard the representations submitted and having viewed the site the Committee did not consider that the proposals put forward would address the problems experienced by local residents and traffic travelling along Sawmills Lane.  

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

      1. The development would generate a volume of traffic which would be detrimental to highway safety and would have a significant effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties - contrary to policy T1 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.

2.  The development would have a significant detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area - contrary to policy H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.