Planning – Application Comments

Comment Date: Fri 26 Sep 2025

2501140S73 50 Dunstone Road.pdf

Comment Date: Mon 22 Sep 2025

PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL CONSULTEE COMMENTS FOR A PLANNING APPLICATION.

APPLICATION SUMMARY
PLANNING APPLICATION: 25/01140/S73
ADDRESS: 50 Dunstone Road Plymstock Plymouth PL9 8SF
DESCRIPTION: Variation of Condition 1 (Approved Plans) of application 25/00684/FUL to add a first-floor rear extension to main building, external wall insulation, and alterations to window/door arrangement:

CASE OFFICER: Sam Lewis (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 September 2025

COMMENTS:
1: Following the associated and part retrospective recently consented scheme for the conversion of the Care Home, into four dwellings with the removal of the conservatory, approved under application 25/00684/FUL (referred to as the consented scheme). The Local Highway Authority (LHA) is unable to support the proposed belated and unjustified amendments to the consent in this S73 variation, to add a first-floor rear extension to the main building, 'specifically to change the 1-bedroom house, into a 2-bedroom' house. That would intensify the use of the property and the consented scheme without considering the car parking shortfall and access at the development, or the associated adverse impacts.

2: The consented scheme already has a supported car parking shortfall of two car parking spaces, when compared to the Councils Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) indicative parking standards. The Council parking standards are applied and accord with the advice in paragraph 112 of the NPPF; as demonstrated by the consented scheme, including by the following extract from the LHA's previous reply. With the parking shortfall of the consented scheme having been looked upon sympathetically and considered as part of the planning balance; referring to an extract of previous comments to the associated consented scheme under application 25/00684/FUL as follows: -
'The proposed private car parking in the rear courtyard for both the 2-bed, and 1-bed, dwelling meet the indicative parking standard, having two parking spaces, and one space, respectively. However, the car parking off Dunstone Road for the two 4-bed dwellings falls short of the indicative standard by one space each, with the application details suggesting the proposed level of private parking would maintain the status quo of the previous Care Home use. On balance with all things considered including, the previous use, accessibility, proximity to local amenities and services, and car ownership, the indicative parking shortfall of two spaces is acceptable. The amended details indicate the proposed development will not result in a loss of car parking and its availability for use at the neighbouring dwelling number 54, using the existing (access) arrangement':

3: However, the prosed extension seeks to intensify the approved scheme and use by extending the building to change a one-bedroom house, into a two-bedroom house. That would compound and increase the car parking shortfall from the two parking spaces of the consented scheme, to three spaces. Potentially degrading the consented scheme along with the public realm by encouraging additional overspill car parking in Dunstone Road; and/or addition cars to be parked in the already constrained rear courtyard causing obstructive parking, to the detriment of the occupiers and users of the parking area; and potentially interfering with the lawful right of vehicle access to the neighbouring property, with concerns having previously been expressed. In which regard the LHA is in this case mindful of the advice in paragraph 140 of the NPPF that states: - Local planning authorities should also seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme:

4: In respect of parking standards the NPPF acknowledges that local parking standards should be applied when Considering Development Proposals; stating in paragraph 115c; In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that, the design of streets, parking areas, other transport elements and the content of associated standards reflects current national guidance, including the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code. With the guidance in the National Model Design Code, Part 1, under the heading Movement, paragraph 50 stating (inter-alia): - (iii) Car parking: Standards for all uses will be set in the local plan'

5: As referred to above (and in paragraph 140 of the NPPF) there are material concerns over the practice of seeking to further intensify and degrade previously consented schemes. Where incremental development, or creep, such as intensification in the use, extension/expansion, or infill, would give rise to cumulative adverse impacts that may be difficult to capture and mitigate. Degrading the surrounding public realm and street amenity, giving rise to overspill and obstructive car parking and associated issues of highway safety.

SUMMARY:
(5) The LHA consider the parking shortfall, access arrangements, and associated adverse impacts were properly considered as part of the planning balance for the consented scheme. But this proposed belated extension and intensification in the use of the property would further compound the parking shortfall and the associated cumulative adverse impacts, tipping the balance to a point that the further proposed development is considered unjustified. Which is disappointing considering the consented scheme already has a parking shortfall of two spaces, and the rear parking courtyard is very constrained, with concerns over maintaining third part access.

However, should planning permission be granted then it is recommended the previously associated planning conditions of the consented scheme are reiterated and be reapplied: - (4) Cycle Parking ' (3) Car Parking (in accordance with the approved plan) - (6) EV charging points ' INFORMATIVES; Kerbs Lowering and Highway Approval.

According as considered above, the LHA recommends the application is refused for the following reasons: -

INADEQUATE: - SITE ' CAR PARKING PROVISION ' ACCESS CONCERNS:
() The application site is of insufficient size to properly accommodate car parking to the Councils planning standards; would give rise to associated increased overspill car parking and unacceptable impacts on highway safety; along with concerns over maintaining access to the rear courtyard and parking area for all users. 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 adverse conditions likely to cause:-
(a) Damage to amenity and degrade the public realm;
(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 National Planning Policy Framework (2024) paragraphs: - 112 , 115 b & c, & 140: