Conversion of existing retirement residential home and self contained basement flat into eight self contained flats / apartments.

Conversion of existing retirement residential home and self contained basement flat into eight self contained flats / apartments.

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·         An amended plan had been submitted identifying the removal of the rear single storey extension in its entirety, removal of the external steps on the eastern elevation and reduction in the number of units from nine to eight.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§         The amended plans largely addressed the issues detailed in the report in that additional space would now be available for access, parking and manoeuvring and one parking space per unit would now be available.

§         In view of the late receipt of the amended plans, delegated authority was requested to amend the site layout to reflect the changes to the building and amend the Section 106 Heads of Terms to reflect the reduction in the number of units.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, commented that the site inspection had revealed the restricted room available for the manoeuvring of vehicles and the limited communal space.  She said that her principal concerns related to the standard of accommodation within the basement and the parking arrangements, particularly given the problems with on-street parking in the area and related highway safety issues.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, noted that the site adjoined Broomy Hill Conservation Area and commented on the parking problems in the locality.  He considered that the proposal was over intensive and that seven flats might be more appropriate.

Councillor PJ Edwards drew attention to the reported comments of the Transportation Manager about the parking space standards; that '...although [he] would not wish to see displacement of parking onto the street, these are maximum figures and may not substantiate a refusal on the grounds of lack of parking alone...'.  Councillor Edwards said that he had concerns about the practicalities of the one-way system for parking but noted that the removal of the extension should assist vehicle movements.  However, he questioned whether the adjustment could compromise floor space in some of the flats.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the removal of the extension would provide adequate space for the one-way system to operate successfully.  He explained that there was no minimum standard for parking spaces and that one parking space per unit was considered acceptable given the sustainable location of the site and accessibility to public transport.  He also advised there was no amenity space standard.

Councillor MAF Hubbard suggested that, in view of the concerns about parking and given the number of spaces was below the maximum standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, the developer should be required to enter into a legal agreement worded so as to prevent future occupants of the development from becoming eligible for residents' parking permits.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that such a restriction had been incorporated into Section 106 Agreements for other developments.

Councillor DB Wilcox noted the concerns about traffic and parking but, given the comments of the Traffic Manager and the proximity of the site to the city centre and public transport links, questioned whether a refusal reason could be sustained on appeal.

Councillor H Davies felt that it was unrealistic to expect occupants to need access to only one car and said that there would be no spaces for visitors.

Councillor RI Matthews noted that the area was predominantly characterised by detached and semi-detached family housing and said that the proposal could have a detrimental impact upon the character and amenity of the area.

Councillor Woodward acknowledged the parking standard considerations and suggested that, if the Sub-Committee was minded to approve the application, planning obligations be concentrated on alleviating the parking problems in the locality.  She felt that the number of units should also be reconsidered.

A number of Members considered that the application should be deferred pending further negotiations regarding the number of units proposed.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCW2008/1681/F be deferred for further negotiations.