Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 April 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that seven objections had been received which were detailed in the report.  He added that no objection had been received from Highways. 

                        Mrs. J. Butlin spoke against the application on behalf of residents.  She said that the original plan which had been approved in 1991 had included two visitor parking spaces.  She raised concern that a hedge had been removed which had destroyed a nesting site and indicated that the applicant had used the land for commercial purposes and the site was now obtrusive and an eyesore.  Mrs. Butlin commented on the loss of the two visitor parking spaces which were for the whole area of the development and said that this would result in visitors parking in the road which would reduce the access for any emergency vehicles.  Removal of the visitor spaces had also created a hazard for the safety of children and others in the community and it was felt that the parking spaces should be restored. 

                        Mr. D. Fitzsimon spoke in support of the application and said that the land in question was shown as visitor parking on the original plans.  However a condition had not been placed on the application for them to be retained and they had never been adopted by the Council and had always remained in private ownership.  The number of parking spaces per dwelling was in accord with national policy and Highways were satisfied with the level of parking provision on site.  Mr. Fitzsimon indicated that removal of the hedge did not require planning permission and the replacement fence fitted in with the streetscene.  He added that the Council could not enforce the use of the land for visitor parking and that third parties did not have a right to park on the land. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She felt that ownership of the land was not a material consideration and in referring to paragraph 7.2, she suggested that the retention of the parking spaces was crucial, and a condition should have been imposed when the application was approved.  Councillor Bateman referred to a letter from the architect on the application in December 1990 indicating that the visitor spaces were for the occupants of 1, 2 and 3 New Brighton Road with the officer reply indicating that the parking for visitors was crucial but had not been conditioned because the issue had been dealt with at the pre-application stage.  She referred to paragraph 4.01 in the support statement which included the approved layout for the site but did not formally lay out the position of the two visitor parking spaces.  Councillor Bateman asked that residents or visitor parking be identified when quoting figures for maximum parking spaces.  She also read out from paragraph 10.66 of Policy AC18. 

            Councillor Alison Halford felt that the issue was that the authority had not conditioned the provision of visitor parking spaces on the application and that this issue should be addressed.  She added that residents had been able to use the parking spaces for 22 years.  She also referred to Section 106 arrangements which were being considered by the Audit Committee.  The Democracy & Governance Manager explained that the application should be judged on its planning merits and comments of issues to be considered by other committees should be disregarded. 

            Councillor Derek Butler said that the parking spaces had not been conditioned and that the land had remained in the ownership of the builder until the legitimate sale to the new owner.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that there was no reason to refuse the application as the land legally belonged to the developer.  He had sympathy with the residents but spoke of the need to accept that a condition had not been included and of the importance to ensure that such issues were conditioned on future applications. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the loss of the hedge was not covered by conditions and if the site was being used for commercial uses then this would need to be reported to Enforcement as it did not form part of the planning application.  On the issue of a Section 106 agreement, land on the site could have been conditioned for parking but this had not been undertaken.  The Development Manager sympathised with the residents but the site was now owned by the occupier of 21 Llys y Wern and he could prevent the residents from using it.  He said that the fence only needed planning permission because it exceeded one metre in height and abutted the cul-de-sac and added that if the area was to be used for the parking of his vehicles it was arguable whether there was a change of use involved.

            In summing up, Councillor Bateman said that the residents of Llys Cae’r Glo were not aware that the land was owned by the developer which had resulted in them not being given the opportunity to purchase it.  She added that the deeds of the properties at Llys Cae’r Glo indicated that there were visitor parking spaces on the site.  The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded the Committee that the issues about the deeds and land ownership were not relevant to determination of the application.         

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was LOST. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.