Agenda item

Demolition of existing garage block and redevelopment with two dwellings including landscaping and associated works.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The application was to demolish a block of 48 garages, 37 which were currently occupied. The garages were mostly used for storage, and it was estimated that 5 garages were used for cars. The site would be redeveloped with two dwellings including landscaping and associated works. Each parking space would have electric charging stations. The Highway Authority was satisfied with road safety and parking.

Public Participation

Cllr Jon Andrews spoke as a member of the public and not as a Councillor.

He had been a resident of Wingfield Road between 1969 to 1975 and remembered playing football around there, but this morning a fire engine would not have been able to get around from the Richmond Road junction along Wingfield Road due to the number of parked vehicles[LA1] . He informed that Wingfield Road has 72 houses in total, and not one parking space was available in Wingfield Road which is a hazard to public safety. The houses were a very nice design but just in the wrong place. There was one car parked and this morning 4 vans. He asked the Committee to not accept the application, as the sheltered accommodation needed emergency vehicle access, which would not have been able to get there this morning, without damaging and moving vehicles due to parked vehicles. The garages were for people who were self-employed, and demolishing these garages would mean that these people would have to find other garages which there is none available in Sherborne.

Ms Lindridge explained that she was a resident of half acres, and many residents were elderly and disabled and her living room and bedroom was 7 foot away from the garages. There would be a loss of privacy, dust upheaval and traffic disruption and essential services would be at risk. She wanted a peaceful life and did not want the hassle that the demolition would bring.

Ms Day informed that amenities, fire services, ambulances came in most days, and supermarket vans needed to get in and out and residents rely on taxies and cars to take them into town, and they were unable to park in their own parking spaces as lots of car park on Wingfield Road. She stated that the Council should consider the implications on behalf of the residents, and there was 7 feet between the garages and herself. Some residents have crutches, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and need those pavements to use and not cars parked on them as for drop down curves people park on them and ambulances and fire services would not be able to get in.

Andrew Tregray (the Agent for the application) explained that the application was to create two new dwellings in a highly sustainable location, a short distance from the town centre and no doubt a suitable location for two dwellings. There had been no technical objections from the Council specialist officers or highway officers. He acknowledged that there had been some concerns from residents over the parking situation and he reiterated what was set out in the officer report. It was a private garage block, not associated with any other specific development, was no part of the Council’s parking strategy and did not have any obligations to maintain parking space for any particular properties. The garages support a low number of cars and were reaching the end of their life span. 25% of the units were currently vacant and the applicant did not monitor the units but were used mostly for storage rather than parking and the units were too small to store modern vehicles. The houses would be limited to 1 and a half storeys, have electric charging points, and there were no technical reasons for why this application should be refused. 

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Fry asked why people were parking on the roads and if they were working locally or was it due to free parking? 
• Cllr Jespersen asked about the access by emergency vehicles and delivery vans to the bungalow’s. 
• Cllr Crabb commented that Half Acres behind did get a high number of emergency vehicles, more than you would in the normal neighbourhood, as carers park.
• Cllr Vitali commented that development would intensify the parking situation, and it was important that the applicants did not intensify parking issues.
• Cllr Rideout requested reassurance that the height of the dwellings would not impact the enjoyment of the neighbours’ gardens or create overshadowing.
• Cllr Jespersen commented that it was a private site, and the landowner could decide to demolish the garages and use the site for anything else at any time. Parking at Wingfield Road was not a relevant issue to the application, and the only thing that the committee should consider is if it exacerbated the issues on the roads. There were adequate gardens and there were no grounds to refuse the application.
• Cllr Brenton commented that the dwellings would be built to modern standards, insulated, she added that this was a planning application rather than a parking application.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Brenton.

Decision: To grant planning permission with conditions and for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and the appendix.