Agenda item

Proposed conversion of former Police Station to 9 no. residential units

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the proposed conversion of former Police Station to 9 no. residential units. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. It was advised that the police station plot had been divided into two plots for sale and subsequently in separate ownership. The site would therefore be the subject of two separate planning applications, the current application constituting the first and covering development of the main police station building.

The attention of the Committee was drawn to a number of corrections to the report. Clarification was provided under paragraph 6.34 that the police station would have had a higher trip generation level than that projected under proposed residential use. An amendment was outlined to paragraph 6.37 in that ‘the number of available spaces during the busiest period would reduce from 58 spaces to 47 26 spaces when including the adjacent development site to the south’. 

Officers outlined that the affordable housing contribution proposed was policy compliant and that the applicant had reaffirmed a commitment to proceeding with the contribution.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application:

·         The lack of on site parking constituted a primary concern, particularly as it was likely that the development would have higher than average car ownership levels. This would have a significant impact on on-street parking demand, exacerbating current issues with a lack of available spaces during peak daytime hours. It was also questioned why a contribution was being sought towards the feasibility of implementing a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in the area surrounding the site if on-street parking was not, as outlined, considered a problem.

·         The affordable housing contribution proposed was thought to be derisory.

Cllr Berryman addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The scheme constituted the loss of another public building and would make no contribution to the local community.

·         The affordable housing contribution and parking provision contained within the application were insufficient, particularly in light of the high existing demand for on-street parking in the area.

The applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The proposed affordable housing contribution was policy compliant

·         Extensive parking surveys had been undertaken for the scheme in accordance with industry standard methodology, focussed on  provision within a 200m radius of the site. These surveys had identified sufficient on street parking provision during peak times to accommodate demand, with 58 spaces minimum available in the area overnight. The projected net increase in vehicles from the scheme would be 7, taking into account the removal of a disabled parking bay. The police station had utilised on-street parking so would also have had an impact on demand in the area.

The Committee sought further clarification from the transport officer on his view of the application as set out within the report. It was explained that the transport statement provided by the applicant was robust but that the area suffered from high on-street parking pressure and the scheme would add to this pressure. Although evidence had been provided that spaces would be available during peak times, these would be distributed over a wide area, with those roads closest to the site suffering from severe pressure.

The Committee raised the following points in their discussion of the application:

·         Clarification was sought on the potential mitigation implementing a CPZ in the area could have on parking demand. It was advised that it would help to a degree as the area suffered from displaced parking from a nearby CPZ but that higher demand in the area was for overnight parking which a CPZ would not cover. Implementation of a 24 hour CPZ was unlikely to be justifiable or supported during the required consultation process.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that the second land parcel of the site covering the yard area was unconnected to the police station scheme but that refusal of the current application would render it unable to be converted to residential. Confirmation was provided that when the application for the second plot came forward, the cumulative impact on parking would be assessed as a material planning consideration.

·         The potential of designating the scheme car free was queried. Officers advised that this was not feasible as the scheme did not meet the requirements in relation to the PTAL level or have a CPZ currently in place.

·         Clarification was sought as to whether a precedent for on-street parking spaces had been established from the police station use. It was advised that it had not been possible to calculate the on-street parking demand from the police station as it was not operational at the time of survey. Hornsey Police Station had been used as a benchmark, data for which suggested that demand was likely to balance out.   

·         Concerns were raised that the sale of the site into two plots might have been contrived to reduce the affordable housing contribution due. Officers advised that the original owner of the land was not one of the applicants and that the two new owners were separate legal entities. It was reiterated that the affordable housing contribution for the current application was policy compliant.

·         Further assurances were sought on the officer recommendation to approve the application despite the reservations of the transport team regarding the impact of the scheme on parking pressures in the area. The Head of Development Management confirmed that consensus was always sought but that in this case, there was a difference in officer opinion regarding the definition of ‘severe’ impact under the MPPF. The planning service considered the 7 additional projected parking spaces associated with the scheme were acceptable in balance against the benefits of bringing the building back into use. 

Cllr Bevan put forward a motion, seconded by Cllr Akwasi-Ayisi, to reject the application on the grounds that the scheme would generate street parking demand and that this would result in a significant adverse impact on existing on street car parking pressure which would impact on existing residents and potentially impact on highway safety at this location. At a vote, the motion was carried and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2014/1333 be refused on the grounds thatthe scheme would generate street parking demand and that this would result in a significant adverse impact on existing on street car parking pressure which would impact on existing residents and potentially impact on highway safety at this location.