Officer Planning Report Recommendations

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:90418}} ### Considerations {{table:90414}} ### Written Representations We have received 1 private representations for this application. ### Consultations {{table:90415}} {{table:90416}} {{table:90417}} ### Policy

Officer's Report

The site represents the footprint of an existing building fronting onto Strathallan Lane which leads from Ridgeway Road to Summerhill Road. All the other structures and frontages form part of the buildings which front onto Summerhill Road and back onto Strathallan Lane. This building was at one time a plumber's store/workshop and office and was until relatively recently used as such. The most recent application (PA 02/0262) for this building proposed retrospective approval for the use of the building as a residential unit. This was refused on appeal due to the adverse impact this would have on the property immediately behind (110 Summerhill Road).

The previous application was refused as the building has a poor external environment, no outside storage facilities, would increase the demand for on street parking at peak times, would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring property.

What is proposed here is the use of all of the building as an office for a fostering agency. They employ six workers who are often out on site talking to clients. The application proposes to replace the existing window above the door, install a roller shutter on the door opening and the installation of internal walling.

The residents of 110, Summerhill Road have again objected. The gist of their letter is that the building should not be used for anything as whatever use it did once have has not been in place for at least 21 years. They also mention the frontage which was altered in 1992 and suggest that the Planning Office has failed in its duties to have this reinstated although I do not recall any mention being made of this in the previous appeal.

It is the view of the Planning Enforcement Officer that the premises were used for microfiche processing by the Planning Office in the 1990s and also Stewart Clague Services have used the premises as a plumber's store and associated office.

The objectors also suggest that the use of the building as an office would be contrary to the designation of the area as residential although they clearly objected to the use of the building as a residence.

The use as an office would have the benefits of being used only 9-5 and probably not weekends: these hours would reduce the impact on the immediate neighbour and also the parking situation in the evenings and at weekends. Any approval could also be personal to this operation. On the other hand, I can understand that the coming and going of these six people may cause difficulties for neighbours although no other neighbours have objected. DoT and ODC have both objected on these grounds.

There will be an increase in traffic if both floors are used, compared with the use of one floor as a store and the upper floor as associated offices. As such the application should be refused.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision : Refused

Date of Recommendation : 18.10.2004

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The site has an established use as a store with ancillary office use above. The use of the building as offices on both floors would generate more and more frequent comings and goings and additional demand for car parking in respect of a site which has no on-site parking and which is situated in an area where there is only limited on street parking available.

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...