Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr John Pitkin (to object) and;

·         Mr Keith Meldrum (Merrow Resident’s Association) (to object);

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 2 (approved drawing numbers) of planning application 16/P/02402 approved 15/11/2017 so that new drawings 167(P)_001_rev1. 167(P)_003_rev1 & 167(P)_004_rev0 may be substituted to reflect the as built parking layout.

The Committee noted that an amended site layout plan had been included, as part of the supplementary late sheets, to demonstrate the ‘as built’ layout and correct discrepancies on the originally submitted drawing.  A new condition had also been proposed to ensure the provision of a cycle store, the details of which must be submitted to the LPA for approval prior to installation.

The site was located in the urban area within the 400m to 5km buffer zone of the TBHSPA.  The building onsite was a former school building locally listed, however permission had recently been granted for the conversion of the building into three flats and the erection of a new detached dwelling to the northern side of the site.  The development had now been built out with the surrounding area being predominantly residential in nature.  Owing to the creation of a larger bin store than originally proposed, the number of parking spaces had been reduced from 7 to 6.  Whilst the parking provision fell short of the Council’s adopted parking standards, no off-street parking was associated with the previous use of the site, when it was a school.  The site was also in a sustainable location with good public transport links.  The County Highway Authority had also assessed the proposal and raised no objection to it.

It was the planning officer’s view that the parking provision proposed represented an improvement upon the number of spaces provided in association with its previous use, the relatively sustainable location and the fact that one space would still be provided for each of the two bedroom units and two spaces for each of the three bedroom units it was considered that the parking layout was acceptable in this instance and the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Deborah Seabrook to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that they were not supportive of the proposed reduction in parking spaces.  The parking requirements for a school was quite different from that of a residential setting.  The application was also retrospective, and the Committee would not have agreed 6 parking spaces originally given it did not meet the Council’s parking standards.  The reduction of one parking space would also place undue pressure upon on-street parking arrangements where parking was already difficult for local residents.

A motion was moved but not seconded to approve the application.  That motion therefore failed.

A subsequent motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/01755 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed parking provision of 6 parking spaces would be insufficient and

would fail to meet the Council's current parking standards, which require 1.5

spaces per two bed unit and 2 spaces per three bed unit that translates as 7

parking spaces for the scheme. This under-provision would lead to a pressure for

on-street parking, in an area where parking is limited, and would add to the

cumulative impact of on-street parking resulting in a poor quality of residential

development. The proposal is therefore unacceptable, as it fails to meet the

Council's parking standards set out in the Council's Vehicle Parking Standards

SPD 2006 and is contrary to policy ID3 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan:

Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 and the requirements of the National Planning

Policy Framework (NPPF).

Informatives:

1. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and

Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach to

development proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive

manner by:

??Offering a pre application advice service

??Where pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has been

followed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising during

the course of the application

??Where possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issues

identified at an early stage in the application process

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessary

negotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significant changes

to an application is required.

In this case pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission, however,

the Council considered that the application was unacceptable as submitted.