1160
The Committee considered an outline application for the proposed change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to residential care home (Class C2) at 55 Woden Avenue in Stanway.
The application was referred to the Committee because of a call-in from Councillor Scott-Boutell, due to concerns regarding a lack of parking provision.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
Sakeena El-Diwany, Planning Officer, presented the report and highlighted that the application was for a change of use from a residential dwelling to a care home for a maximum of three children and three staff. Two previous applications for lawful development certificates at this site had been refused as they had been considered material changes. She showed the Committee detailed photos of the property and surrounding area, taken earlier in the week. The site, an end of terrace property, lay within the settlement boundary where development was acceptable in principle, and the proposal did not include any external alterations to the dwelling which would therefore retain an entirely residential appearance. Supervised outdoor activity for the children would be restricted to 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ensuring that any incidental noise remained within reasonable daytime hours. The proposed parking plan included Sheffield cycle stands on the side of the dwelling and three parking spaces to the rear, including one in the existing garage, and the Highway Authority had no objection to the proposal. Overall, the proposal was expected to generate low predictable parking demand, and the parking provision was therefore considered acceptable. The recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions set out in the committee report, some of which would have amended wording.
James Ryan, Development Manager, spoke at the Chair’s invitation to inform the Committee that a late representation had been received. Although the objection largely comprised issues similar to the ones addressed by the Planning Officer and concerns about precedent, it also noted the matter of a resident in the area with a protected characteristic, who could be adversely affected by the change. He subsequently confirmed that, if the application were approved, an Equality Impact Assessment would be undertaken.
The Chair informed the Committee that he had refused a request by Councillor Scott-Boutell for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals. This had been in line with advice from the Development Manager that a site visit was not essential as the site was a normal residential dwelling with the only visible change on site being the provision of an additional parking space, which would be dealt with via condition.
Councillor Scott-Boutell attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee, drawing their attention to two conditions attached to the development’s original approval decision. Condition Five pertained to measures to control the flow and speed of traffic throughout the site and Condition Six talked about the design and delivery of the humpback crossing points. These highlighted that the roads were not designed for or to encourage parking on the road. The Councillor further noted that when Colchester City Council rolled out new wheeled bins, it was decided not to include the estate because of the narrowness of the roads. She had therefore been surprised to read the Highway Authority’s response to the consultation.
Having visited the site, Councillor Scott-Boutell agreed with the objector who had pointed out that the proposed parking area highlighted was incorrect, as the area at the side of the property could only accommodate one small vehicle without causing an obstruction to the shared driveway. Her view was that this was not a designated space due to the entrance to the shared parking being on a bend with very limited sight lines. In addition, the objector had advised that parking at the rear of the property highlighted in the proposal was inaccurate. She noted that the Officer had advised that the applicant had subsequently confirmed that a third parking space would be created on land within the applicant's ownership through reconfiguring the existing boundary fence. She asked how this would be reconfigured, where the bike stand would be situated, whether the day room would be converted back into a garage and whether the changes would leave sufficient amenity land.
Councillor Scott-Boutell stated that there would be times when visitors were not able to use the off-street parking and expressed disappointment that the Highway Authority was content for the additional parking to take place on the carriageway, which was against the original planning permission. She was concerned that the additional parking created by this application would have a detrimental impact on existing residents due to parking from additional staff and visitors to the property, and concluded by asking that, if the Committee was mindful to approve, they should ensure that the conditions imposed would protect the neighbours in the interest of highway safety and for the convenience of pedestrians and motorists.
Sakeena El-Diwany responded to Councillor Scott-Boutell’s comments and questions. She confirmed that the garage would be reconverted to use as a garage parking space and clarified that the second proposed parking space to the side of the dwelling would measure 5m by 2.5m, which was considered acceptable under the Essex County Council 2009 parking standards. An existing outbuilding would be removed to create the third parking space and so would not result in a loss of garden space. The boundary fence would also be reconfigured to accommodate the third parking space, and a condition imposed requiring the submission for approval of detailed information including its exact location, height, and proposed materials. In terms of the conditions of the original planning permission, the Highways Authority had been consulted and confirmed that they were not relevant to this application because they related to traffic calming measures during the construction of the estate.
The Chair thanked the Speaker and Officers for their contributions. He then clarified that the initial caveats on parking within the development covered the construction phase and were no longer relevant once it was residential living and invited the Committee to discuss the issues raised in the report and by the speaker.
The Committee asked for clarification on why the original change of use applications had been refused. The Development Manager explained that these had been certificates for lawful development, not planning applications, and the Council’s view was that the applicant had now gone through the right process.
Members noted that when a similar application, without off-road parking, had been refused, it had subsequently been overturned on appeal, and there was concern that a rejection in this case would again lead to appeal. Although the road was contorted, it was a closed estate with no through traffic. In addition, there was a substantial play area across the road where the children could get exercise. The Committee felt there was ample room for cars, although the Development Manager clarified that the tarmac visible in some of the photos was a shared parking court.
It was proposed and seconded that the Committee should accept the Officer’s original recommendation.
RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY): that the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report (with amended wording) and completion of an Equality Impact Assessment.