Agenda item

                        The Planning Officer reported that one further objection letter had been received from a resident who had wished to speak against the application tonight but was unable to attend the meeting.  The speaker wished to object on parking grounds.

                        Councillor Debbie Morris referred to the shortfall in parking and asked exactly what this was and what the arrangements would be for parking. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in support of the application.

                        The Planning Officer advised that on the parking there would be two parking spaces provided at the front of the property, one for each flat, which would mean a shortfall of 1.75 spaces.  The parking standard was 2.5 spaces.  There were no parking restrictions around the property and on street parking was available but was not assigned to the property and had not been assessed by officers.  Highways had not raised an objection on highway safety.  An informative had been included, at the request of the Highways Authority, with regard to the storage of materials and to not obstruct the highways which would include any skips.  Officers felt this was sufficient but could be made a condition if Members felt this was required. 

                        Councillor Sara Bedford felt uneasy with the application which would expand the already difficult parking in the area with nowhere to park with competition for parking huge.  Adding more cars was not going to help.  It was not the Council’s job to approve a planning application so that it would be easier to let for the owner.  The Councillor would not want a living room on the same level as a bedroom as this would be very disturbing and would impact on people being able to sleep.  If this application was to be approved it would have a negative impact on the living standards of the people living there. 

                        The Planning Officer advised that the parking had been assessed as set out in the report and it was considered to be acceptable but Members may come to a different conclusion.  Members were referred to an appeal decision on 16 Altham Gardens which had seen a shortfall of 1.25 spaces which the Appeal Inspector had upheld. 

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya noted that Herts County Council had raised no objections as detailed in the report and wondered if there was any update. 

                        The Planning Officer advised that there was no update and clarified no objection had been made by Highways.  The Council (TRDC) were the parking authority and set the parking standards.  Members may have a different view to that of officers and may wish to make an alternative decision.  It was all about tilt and balance and whether the additional unit proposed would have an adverse impact on the people living there.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford reiterated their concern about the impact on the residential amenity.

                        Councillor Stephen King was also concerned about the shortfall in parking, adjacent living rooms to bedrooms, loss of a family home and felt these were strong reasons for refusing the application.

                        The Planning Officer reminded Members that if they were to look to refuse the application an additional reason for refusal would need to be included on the absence of a Section 106 agreement to secure the affordable housing contribution.

Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Debbie Morris, that Planning Permission be Refused, contrary to officer recommendation, on the grounds relating to (1) a shortfall of parking and (2) in the absence of a S106 agreement to secure the affordable housing contribution.  The exact wording to be circulated to Members for agreement.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked the proposer if they would be happy to add the impact of that shortfall on the residential amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers.  The proposer was happy to add this to refusal.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 6 For, 1 Against and 3 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED (contrary to officer recommendation on grounds relating to (1) a shortfall of parking and the impact of that shortfall on the residential amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers and (2) in the absence of a S106 agreement to secure the affordable housing contribution.  The exact wording to be circulated to Members for agreement.

Reasons for Refusal

R1 Insufficient parking would be provided to serve the proposed development.  This shortfall of parking provision would result in a significantly increased pressure for parking on-street in an already congested area to the detriment of the residential amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies CP1, CP10 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policies DM1, DM13 and Appendix 5 of the Development Management Policies document (adopted July 2013).

R2 In the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the development would not contribute to the provision of affordable housing. The proposed development therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (approved June 2011).