NORTHERN PLANNING COMMITTEE – 22 January 2014

UPDATE REPORT

Application No.	13/4746M

Location:	PEAK HOUSE, SOUTH PARK ROAD, MACCLESFIELD, CHESHIRE, SK11 6SH

Proposal:	CONVERSION OF EXISTING B1 OFFICE USE TO TWELVE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH PARKING. RE-SUBMISSION 13/0599M

Prepared:	20 January 2014

Highways Matters:

The Councils Strategic Highways Manager (SHM) has been consulted on this application and notes that a major issue remains the adequacy of parking provision. The scheme proposes 11 off-street, which leaves a shortfall of 7 according to current guidance. However, following the results of their detailed parking survey, the SHM accepts that there is enough available on street parking to cover this shortfall. Furthermore, as the applicant has stated, that the deficit with this scheme would be less than that with current permitted use, although not at critical times of the day.

The applicant has attempted to maximise off-street parking in the layout. The submitted layout for the outer 4 spaces would require unacceptable manoeuvring (as they show) over junctions and shallow angles along the footway. With footway works (via a s184 agreement) including a reduction of the South Park/Armitt kerb radius (i.e. strengthened footway build-out), safe parking spaces perpendicular to the kerb could be constructed and the number increased ( 3 on Hatton Street), with a concession on usual driveway length from us. The SHM estimates that net loss of kerb parking spaces would be 1 or 2.

Internally, for the limited number of parking spaces envisaged, two-way flow at the gate and further in is not necessary (and in any case is not achieved with the 4.5m width stated in the text (which differs from the drawings). This gives scope to try an alternative internal car park layout (e.g echelon on the eastside and some small width concessions on the west) which could increase the provision from the submitted 7 to 9.

The SHM, therefore, concludes it is feasible to achieve 14 off-street parking spaces and have the great benefit of at least one off-street space for each of the 12 dwellings. To promote neighbourliness and avoid disputes, these should all be allocated to individual dwellings at an early stage.

It may not be necessary to greatly alter the existing gate, although its current location is incompatible with the proposed bin store location. (Drawings show that an open gate negates the bin store operation). Also, using the current gate would require an acceptable concession from us regarding pedestrian visibility splays, basically accepting that a car emerging centrally has sufficient sight of crossing pedestrians. Vehicular visibility splays, although not ideal, are likely to be compatible with speeds of traffic on the street. We need to know the method of gate control so that we can assess its acceptability. Although, in this street, it would be acceptable for entering cars to wait for gates to open, any control device should be hands-free.

In light of the submission of a revised parking layout, the proposal is not considered to raise significant concern in terms of MBLP Policy DC6 or the Framework.

Other Matters

Please note that the conclusion in the main committee report, incorrectly, reported that the Council has a deliverable 7.15 years supply of housing for the years April 2013 to March 2018, in accordance with Paragraph 49 of the NPPF.

Following recent appeal outcomes Members will be aware that the Council does not currently have a 5 year supply of housing for the Borough and therefore attention should be had to the requirements of paragraph 14 of the NPPF which advises that when Councils are decision taking, they should:

“Approve development proposal that accord with the development plan without delay, and

Where the development plans is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out of date they should grant planning permission unless;

-	any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessing against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted”

The submission of a S.106 legal agreement is still awaited.

CONCLUSION

The application remains recommended for approval subject to conditions, with an added condition for the submission of a revised parking layout to be approved in accordance with the SHM.