Agenda item

To consider planning application 23/0430 for the conversion of previously approved single flat to 2no. self-contained permanent flats.

The Committee considered planning application 23/0430 Conversion of previously approved single flat to two self contained permanent flats in respect of Flat, 25, Coastal Point.

The Committee was advised that the application site was subject to a long and complex planning history and also referred to an application granted in July 2023 for the redevelopment of numbers 6-8 Harrow Place for 15 flats, which was subject to a condition preventing commencement until a parking scheme had been secured. The applications on the agenda for this meeting related to Coastal Point and although the scheme as a whole encompassed numbers 2-4 Harrow Place and number 647-655 New South Promenade, in planning application terms the flats at numbers 653-655 New South Promenade sat outside the red edge of the current applications. These were still relevant as the original planning permission 16/0421 sought to secure parking for the whole of the Coastal Point Scheme. Ms Parker advised that the Council’s original approach was innovative as the Council was keen to facilitate development on a site with buildings in a poor state or repair, however a number of technical obstacles had become apparent which had then delayed any progress. In addition to this, the Coastal Point development under planning application 16/0421 did not progress in accordance with the original permission granted due to various reasons. At this juncture the Committee was reminded that breach of planning control was not in itself justification for formal planning action unless that breach resulted in material planning harm.

Ms Parker continued to outline the planning history and the timeline of the current applications, along with the application for 6-8 Harrow Place approved in July 2023. A new parking arrangement was devised to meet the requirements of all applications and in order to achieve this, both developers would need to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement. The Applicant for the three applications to be determined by the Committee tonight could enter into their Section 106 Agreement though those applications and the applicant for 6-8 Harrow Place had been advised to submit a discharge of condition application to enter into their Section 106 agreement. Ms Parker noted that draft legal agreements had not been issued for inclusion with the agenda but these would be issued as soon as possible.

Ms Parker continued to outline the position in respect of the Section 106 agreements and under those agreements, both developers would be required to dedicate an area of land to deliver parking provision, with both paying a capital contribution to provision, and liable to pay for parking for a five-year period. The parking scheme for the three applications before the Committee would have 87 spaces for 88 flats which was not a 1:1 ratio, but was considered to be the best overall solution. Ms Parker summarised the process that would be followed once all Section 106 agreements had been completed and the Committee was advised that a Traffic Regulation Order would be required to enable the Council to use the highway for parking or to restrict traffic flows to one way. As Traffic Regulation Orders were subject to their own legislation, this would be an opportunity for local resident to make representations.

As outlined in the umbrella report, the Committee was reminded that the layby on the southern side of Harrow Place outside number 10 was proposed to be unrestricted as there was sufficient parking provision within the curtilage of this property. Ms Parker asked the Committee to note that should the demand for parking permits on the scheme be less than 100% take-up then the Council may need to re-evaluate the scheme, and make spaces available for general pay and display use, however any such changes would be via the Traffic Regulation Order process and not the planning process.

Ms Parker then outlined specific information in respect of application number 23/0430 which sought permission to sub-divide the existing flat number 25 into two separate units which would still result in both flats meeting minimum floor space standards, whilst not compromising the overall housing mix.

In terms of impact, Ms Parker advised that there was no other impact envisaged for this application, other than the impact upon parking. In respect of parking, the Committee was advised that the Applicant objected to condition 7 which would prevent occupation of the flats until the parking scheme was available. Ms Parker advised the Committee that Planning Officers were of the view that the historic agreement of a 1:1 parking ratio should be maintained and as such, condition 7 was appropriate.

In conclusion for planning application 23/0430, Ms Parker asked the Committee to resolve to support the proposal and to delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to signature of a Section 106 Agreement, the conditions listed in the Committee Report and the correction to condition 7 as listed in the Update Note.

Mr D Storton spoke in objection to the application and had also registered to speak on application numbers 23/0126 and 23/0440. As these applications were linked to each other, the Chair allowed Mr Storton to speak on each application concurrently, using all of his allocated time during this item. Mr Storton referred to an email sent to Councillors and Officers and provided the Committee with verbatim extracts of the email. Mr Storton advised the Committee that he had lived in his property for 23 years and that he had raised concerns in respect of parking arrangements within the development with the Council and the Member of Parliament. In relation to parking, Mr Storton outlined the contact had with various officers and previous on-site meetings and Planning Committee meetings. In relation to parking matters, Mr Storton advised the Committee that unrestricted access to the parking layby would resolve parking issues.

Ms J Fox, Agent for the Applicant spoke on application number 23/0430 and advised the Committee that flat number 25 was the only three –bed apartment within the scheme and that all penthouse apartments had parking provision within the courtyard area. In respect of condition 7, Ms Fox advised the Committee that, in her view, it was not lawful to require a third party to take action in order to discharge a planning condition and asked that this condition be removed from the application, should the Committee resolve to support the application.

Ms Fox also spoke on applications 23/0426 and 23/0440 and her submission in respect of those applications is contained within the minutes for each of those items.

Mr I Curtis, Legal Adviser, advised that, in his view condition 7 was not inherently unlawful, however should the Committee prefer to obtain a full legal opinion on this matter, then deferral of the item should be considered.

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, provided the Committee with a further overview of the proposed parking and noted that the proposed new scheme sought to divide one flat into two flats and, in the view of Planning Officers, the same ratio of 1:1 parking should apply.

The Committee discussed application number23/0430 at length in conjunction with planning applications 23/0426 and 23/0440 and noted the submissions from Mr Storton and Ms Fox along with the complex planning history of the site. In discussions on this item, the Committee noted the Applicant’s request to remove condition 7 and the importance of encouraging development on this site.

Resolved:

1.      To support the application and delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to the conditions outlined in the Committee Report and Update Note.

2.      To remove condition 7 and to note that the removal of conditions 7 would remove the need for a Section 106 Agreement to secure the necessary parking scheme.

3.      To authorise the Head of Development Management to make changes to the wording of the conditions as may be appropriate as long as the changes would not materially affect what the condition is trying to achieve or the permission overall.