05/00105/B Officer Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:100965}} this would have on the property immediately behind (110 Summerhill Road) and 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. The application proposed to replace the existing window above the door, install a roller shutter on the door opening and the installation of internal walling. The most recent application was the same as this now proposed and whilst being refused, the applicant requested their review outside the time permitted and was denied a review of that decision. They are now applying afresh for the same things. 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. Their concern at the lack of enforcement is not really fair as the previous residents were made to move from the property and the fostering agency will also be made to do so if this application is not approved. 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 : 08.04.2005

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.

R 2. The Fire Prevention Officer recommends that the layout and means of escape is not satisfactory as a fire occurring within the new office area on the ground floor may have the potential to trap persons on the first floor with no means of escape.

• 3. As the proposed application has been refused but the use proposed is already being undertaken the use, it is unlawful and must cease within three months of the date of this notice as it becomes final.

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