Agenda item

The North Area Principal Planner presented the report and outlined the reasons for approval as detailed in the report.  Parking standards in the Peak District National Park Development Management Plan policies stated that a parking space should be 5m long and 2.5m wide. A 3-bedroomed house should have provision for a minimum of 2 parking spaces with a maximum of 3 parking spaces. The property currently had space for 1 car in the garage and 2 on the driveway, although 300mm short of the parking standard and would be located on a modern housing development constructed to modern highway standards.  Bradwell Neighbourhood Plan, made in 2015, had Policy T2 that stated the removal of any car parking facilities both public and private would be strongly opposed.  This application would result in the loss of a car parking space.  The Peak District Development Management Plan, adopted in 2019, had policy DMT8B to protect off street parking where there was evidence it would result in traffic circulation issues.  When there was a conflict between different parts of the Development Plan this must be resolved in favour of the latest document that had been adopted as part of the Development Plan, which in this case is the 2019 policy DMT8.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme.

•         Paul Downing

The following points were discussed:

•         The garages at Bradwell Springs could be used for alternative purposes with consent from the Peak District National Park Authority.

•         There was no distinction between a house being used as a dwelling or as a holiday let.  If the deeds included restrictions on the use of properties as holiday lets, that was not a planning matter, as the property would remain in use as a dwelling albeit on a short-term occupancy basis.

•         The garage had already been partitioned.  That did not constitute development but was contrary to the relevant planning condition.

•         Under the Development Plan parking standard policies were binary and the space on the drive way did not constitute 2 parking spaces as it would be under 10m in length.

•         The garage space left after the partition work did not meet parking standards of 5m x 2.5m.

•         The remaining parking area could be used for motorbikes, trailers and smaller vehicles.

•         Two vehicles parking on the driveway could result in a car encroaching onto the footpath.

•         The Neighbourhood Plan was clear on preserving parking spaces on the property as oppose to on the road side.  Approving the application would not help achieve this.

•         The parking and traffic circulation issues in Bradwell are material planning considerations which were considered in the planning assessment.

•         The Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the Development Plan for the National Park.

•         The recommendation for approval was based on the location being a redeveloped site with modern parking standards.  The Neighbourhood Plan policies had been a material consideration.

•         The final decision taken should consider the impact of this proposal on this area of Bradwell.  Any subsequent appeal on a refusal would be hard to defend by Officers unless harm could be evidenced.

•         Two larger vehicles parked on the driveway would result in an overhang onto the pavement to the detriment of pedestrian, wheelchair and pram users.

•         Section 36 (5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 stated that precedence must be given to the newer Development Management Plan as opposed to the Neighbourhood Plan

A motion to refuse the application contrary to Officer recommendation, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

RECOMMENDATION:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed development would reduce the number of car parking spaces serving the property to below the specified minimum outlined in Appendix 9 of the Development Management Policies Plan and would impede pedestrian and vehicular access on Swift Close to the detriment of local traffic circulation. The proposal development is therefore in conflict with Neighbourhood Plan policy T2 and Development Management Policy DMT8.