Planning – Application Comments

Consultation Date: Tue 04 Feb 2025

Consultation Date: Wed 11 Dec 2024

Consultation Date: Wed 11 Dec 2024

Consultation Date: Wed 11 Dec 2024

Consultation Date: Wed 22 Jan 2025

Comment Date: Thu 30 Jan 2025

2401517FUL 2 Gill Park V2.pdf

Comment Date: Fri 20 Dec 2024

2401517FUL 2 Gill Park.pdf

Comment Date: Thu 19 Dec 2024

LLFA Consultation Response 24.01517.FUL.pdf

Comment Date: Thu 19 Dec 2024

Standing advice for single property developments 2023.pdf

Comment Date: Mon 23 Dec 2024

PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL CONSULTEE COMMENTS FOR A PLANNING APPLICATION.

APPLICATION SUMMARY
PLANNING APPLICATION: 24/01517/FUL
ADDRESS: 2 Gill Park, Efford, Plymouth, PL3 6LX
DESCRIPTION: New dwelling

CASE OFFICER: Macauley Potter (Planning Officer)
Development Management, PCC Strategic Planning & Infrastructure, Floor 2 Ballard House PL1 3BJ

CONSULTEE: Gary Lester (Transport Officer)
PCC Strategic Planning & Infrastructure, Transport Planning Team, Floor 2 Ballard House PL1 3BJ

Date: 19th December 2024

COMMENTS:
The Local Highway Authority (LHA) is unable to support the proposed development of the application garden plot as currently proposed.

The application donor property at 2 Gill Park is a three-bedroom (notwithstanding that the smallest bedroom is shown in the application drawings as a Study) semi-detached dwelling with garden, and two off-street private parking spaces. The development plot being the side garden of the donor dwelling located on the corner plot of Gill Park and Larkhall Rise.

The current off-street private parking is provided by a long hardstanding, with an adjacent detached single car garage that now appears to be disused and in disrepair that is served by an existing vehicle footway access from Larkhall Rise. Although the application details seem to incorrectly indicate there is currently only one off-street parking space serving the donor property, rather than the current two (notwithstanding the condition of the garage or the lack of vehicle footway crossing to the hardstanding).

The proposed development of an additional new dwelling on the side garden would leave both dwellings, the donor dwelling and the new dwelling, with only one off-street parking space each. Resulting in a loss of one parking space at the donor dwelling and creating an overall parking shortfall of two parking spaces (one at each dwelling), which would be likely to give rise to overspill car parking in the street.

Off-street private car parking requirements for residential developments are set out in the Councils SPD (with reference to Policy DEV29.3) in paragraphs 8.6, 8.7, and Table 30 'Indicative car parking provision for new residential development'. Which includes that it is important to avoid adverse impacts of inadequate parking such as excessive on-street parking or illegal parking, to protect the amenity of surrounding residential areas, and ensure safety of the highway network. Any application that proposes a lower or higher level of parking (than in this case the two parking spaces per dwelling set out in the Table) will be required to provide evidence to justify the proposal.

SUMMARY:
The LHA would object to the proposed development of the garden with one family sized dwelling due to the unjustified loss of and shortfall created in the off-street parking provision, that would be robbed from the donor dwelling. Creating a parking shortfall at both dwellings that would be likely to cause overspill parking in the local streets in the vicinity of the application property and road junction. As a Windfall site the development would generally be expected to meet the Councils current planning and parking standards. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused for the following reason: -

Inadequate Provision of Parking:
No adequate provision is proposed to be made for the parking of cars of persons residing at or visiting the development. Vehicles used by such persons would therefore have to stand on the public highway giving rise to conditions likely to cause:-
(a) Damage to amenity;
(b) Prejudice.to public and highway safety and convenience;
(c) Interference with the free flow of traffic on the highway;
which is contrary to Policy DEV29 of the Plymouth & Southwest Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034. And contrary to The NPPF paragraphs 109b & 117c.


Gary Lester
Transport Planning Officer
Officer authorised to sign on behalf of the Service
Director for Strategic Planning & Infrastructure

Comment Date: Thu 19 Dec 2024

954214 Consultation Response 2.pdf