Address:       Existing public car park, St Andrews Place, Church Street, Ampthill, MK45 2EW

Erection of 8 dwellings alongside the provision of 12 public car parking spaces and demolition of existing boundary wall.

Applicant:     Dandara Ltd

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/03883/FULL for the erection of 8 dwellings alongside the provision of 12 public car parking spaces and the demolition of an existing boundary wall at the existing public car park, St Andrew’s Place, Church Street, Ampthill.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional comments and an additional informative as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Ampthill Town Council, objectors to the application and the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the Ampthill Business Chamber representative, as an objector, as to whether the staff of local businesses had been mandated to use the car park.  He then commented that signage was well signposted at the site itself but asked if the Chamber had put any parking signposting in the town itself.  In response to the second question the representative stated that consideration could be given to providing such information on the large plan showing local businesses which the Chamber had placed in the town.  She added that, as a Business Chamber, it would be difficult to require employers to tell their staff to use the car park especially if the staff were required to pay.  However, Waitrose, as a local employer, had indicated that it would require its staff to park there if parking was free.  She also felt that many businesses were not aware that the car park existed.

The Member then sought clarification from the applicant with regard to the planning officer’s report which appeared to suggest the company had not made a s106 contribution or affordable housing contribution as a part of its previous original application.  In response the applicant explained the process undertaken and how, because the car park was assumed to generate income, a higher financial contribution had in fact been made to the Council’s affordable housing fund.  If the car park had not been provided it would have assumed no income would have been generated from the site and a lower contribution would have been made.  He stressed that the company had made a contribution to the Council towards the latter’s provision of affordable housing.

In response to other Members’ queries the applicant stated that the site had now been assessed for business rates and a bill of £800 pm had recently been received.  The car park had been in operation since late 2015 but usage data was only available from May 2016 when the necessary monitoring equipment had been installed following the realisation there was an issue with use.   The applicant advised that he was unable to state how much money had been contributed to the affordable housing fund but he or the case officer could supply this information.

A Member sought clarification on the level of the financial loss for the car park.  The meeting was advised that the total loss was approximately £1,250 pm.  This sum included the monthly rates of £800.  The meeting noted that should the car park operate as a free facility it would be at a cost of at least £800 pm.  In reply to a query as to why the applicant had submitted the planning application the applicant stated that the purpose was to make the best use of the site as there was no benefit arising from an underused car park.  The 12 spaces which would be retained would be sufficient to cover the established demand and there would be no other impact apart from the provision of the new dwellings and making the best use of a previously developed site.  In response to a further query the applicant added that discussions had taken place with the Town Council on the low level of use of the car park and joint measures had been taken to encourage greater use.  However, such co-operation had ceased after the Town Council failed to respond for a six month period to a query on assisting the applicant with the running of the car park.  Given the unsustainable losses incurred by the car park’s operator RCP it was decided to take forward a pre-application submission for the redevelopment of the site.  The applicant pointed out that it had always been intended that the car park would be a commercial enterprise and the hourly charge for the car park was 80 pence which was lower than that charged by Central Bedfordshire Council.  He did not believe this charge deterred the public from using the car park.  He emphasised that it had not been the applicant which had withdrawn from discussions with the Town Council but that the latter had stopped communicating with the applicant.  Given the losses incurred by the operator it was decided to proceed with a planning application.

The first ward Member set out his objection to the application.  He referred to the Planning Inspector’s opposition to building on the site because of the presence of an orchard but as it was widely recognised that a new local car park was needed the original application for housing had been approved subject to the provision of a car park.  The car park use was to be free and this incorporated in a s106 Agreement but it was only conditioned instead.  The ward Member stressed that ultimately the town would gain nothing if the current application for redeveloping the car park was approved.  He referred to the use of phasing of a development as a means of avoiding the provision of affordable housing and that the application before the Committee should be considered on this basis.  He referred to an appeal decision which he claimed was of relevance to the current development and which supported his claim that this was a single site.  Further, all of the proposed eight dwellings should be provided as affordable homes, though this would not generate income for the applicant.  He then referred to the Central Bedfordshire Council’s own policy (Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy) under which a divided site would be considered as a single whole.  He reminded the meeting that the Council also had a 5 year land supply.  The ward Member then stated that Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) had been completed and local side roads would eventually have double yellow lines applied which would increase usage of the car park, especially if it were available free of charge.  He did not believe it was feasible to expect local people, for a variety of reasons, to pay for car park use. The Town Council had formally offered to run the existing car park and offered to pay rent to do so.  The applicant could bequeath the land to the Town Council, the land reverting back to the applicant should this operation cease.  He pointed out that there was no other land in the town centre which could be used as a public car park.  He urged rejection of the application.

A second ward Member referred to the Maulden and Clophill residents who used Ampthill for shopping and who were frustrated by the parking difficulties they experienced.  He stated that he was unaware that the car park in St Andrew’s Place had opened.  He acknowledged that the need to walk uphill to the town centre and then return back to the car park could be difficult for some people though if it was free to use this could influence people’s opinion positively.  The ward member added that because a piece of land was unprofitable it did not mean it should be built on.  The ward Member saw the car park as an open space, a community asset used for a number of purposes outside its intended use and its removal would have a detrimental impact.  He concluded by commenting that he was uncertain when a car park became profitable and that even large car park operators probably did not see a site become so for two-three years after opening.  The new car parking strategy in Ampthill would see the future use of off street car parking increase and the application had raised local people’s awareness of the car park’s location.   He did not believe the proposed dwellings were needed and urged rejection.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The planning officer’s comment that the s106 payment included a sum of £40k towards the provision of affordable housing and it had been collected. He stressed that the application site did not form part of a phased development as had been claimed but constituted an entirely separate scheme following the construction of the car park under the terms of the original application.  The new application therefore represented a post-completion application.  He explained how the appeal decision referred to by the first local Member was not relevant to the application before Members.

·         The planning officer’s comment that Council Policy CS7 did require a scheme to provide 35% affordable housing but Ministerial statements indicated that a contribution towards affordable housing should not be requested for smaller developments. 

·         The Chairman’s comments and observations regarding many of the points raised by speakers including the validity of some of them as planning issues.

·         The planning officer’s comments that the building levels would be controlled by condition to ensure they were consistent with the adjacent built form and the Conservation area was 60 meters away.  It was not considered therefore that there would be an adverse impact on the view of St Andrew’s Church and that this was also the view of the conservation officer.  He also stated that there would be no overbearing impact on the existing nearby bungalows.

·         The new parking restrictions had not yet been implemented.  The highways officer stated that he had only recently become aware of these.  He explained the current parking restrictions near the application site and stated that he had not seen the details of those restrictions proposed though they appeared to be for Bedford Street (B530) leading north to Houghton Conquest and Bedford.

·         A Member of the Committee, who was also a ward member, referred to the extensive background research he had conducted into the planning history of the application site.  He explained how the requirement for the car park had arisen and how there had been widespread local support for it to be provided.  He contrasted that with the opposition to the current application and how the commercial operation of the site had arisen. 

·         The ward Member stated that the Town Council had rightly not responded to the applicant’s request to impose parking restrictions as a means to encourage use of the car park.  He stressed that the proposed parking restrictions were to be introduced purely on the grounds of safety.  The restrictions in Bedford Street had been imposed because parked vehicles created a dangerous pinch point.

·         The ward Member referred to a series of meetings which had taken place with the applicant and the reasons why it had not been possible to immediately develop the Town Council’s involvement in the operation of the car park.  Once  the business rate for the site had been announced the Town Council had been able to develop an operational budget and had contacted the applicant that it wished to take this matter further.  However, no response had been received

·         On the matter of additional signage the ward Member stated that it was not the Town Council’s responsibility to fund this for the benefit of a commercial body.

·         The ward Member then detailed his opposition to the current application. He also drew the meeting’s attention to the impact on the residents of Colston Rise which would cease to be a cul-de-sac and how there would no longer be a need for turning spaces because of this.  In conclusion he stated that Members were misled as to the outcome of the 2013 revised application and that because it was an officer delegation Members were not enabled  to object to the conditions and s106 Agreement.  The application was seriously flawed.  He then moved refusal and set out the reasons for doing so.

(Note: at this point in the proceedings the planning and highways solicitor interjected and raised concerns that the ward Member had fettered his discretion.  She stated that it did appear from what he had said that the Member did not to have an open mind with regard to the application and had already taken a decision.  The ward Member withdrew the motion and also  withdrew from the seating allocated to Members of the Committee but remained within the Chamber).

·         A Member referred to the desire for the Town Council to operate the car park, the costs involved and that an offer had been made by the Town Council to the applicant to do so.  He also felt the application to be contrary to policy HA5 and this formed one of the reasons to refuse the application.

·         A Member commented that the public would never pay to park at the St Andrew’s Place car park  when they could park at Waitrose which was both free and more convenient.  She felt that there was no incentive to use the car park at St Andrew’s Place and suggested a holistic review of all car parking in the town to gain the maximum efficiency of use.  She strongly objected to the loss of 100 car parking spaces without first establishing whether demand would rise if the facility were free.  She moved refusal on the grounds of loss of amenity.  Another Member also suggested the application before Members was contrary to Policies HA5 and DM4 and would result in a reduction in sustainability.

·         A Member referred to almost complete underuse of the St Andrew’s Place car park and expressed the view that the public would not use a parking place unless it was directly in front of a shop.  He also referred to the presence of the of the hill and how this would deter users from using the car park and walking to the town centre..  The Member stated that he had seen a similar refusal to use car park facilities that were only a short distance from shops in Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.  He was of the opinion that there might be about 12 vehicles using the car park in Ampthill and this was the number of places offered under the application.  He added that it was in the Ampthill’s interest both in general and for local businesses for better signage to be erected if business’s were failing.  Nonetheless, he believed that this would still not encourage greater use.  In contrast housing was needed and the application was a reasonable proposal for this and met Policy HA5.  He did see how the application could therefore be refused and refusal would prove difficult to stand up to challenge.  The Town Council did not refer to the loss of light and visual impact in its submission.   He felt that these points should have been raised in written form and submitted before the meeting. 

·         In clarification the Chairman stated that the number of on-street car parking spaces lost as a result of the implementation of the proposed waiting restrictions in the town centre was unknown.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of loss of amenity in form of 88 car parking spaces and contrary to Policies DM4 and HA5 of the Development Plan document, the reduction in the sustainability of Ampthill and the loss of amenity for the residents of Colston Rise on the basis it was no longer a cul-de-sac.

(Note: At the request of Councillor Nicols, and following the planning officer’s comment that refusal would likely result in costs to the Council, and in compliance with paragraph 9.4 of Part 4E of the Constitution, a recorded vote was taken).

On being put to the vote 5 Members voted to refuse the application (Councillors Bowater, Mrs Clark, Dalgarno, Gomm and Young), 3 voted against refusal (Councillors Firth, Ghent and Nicols) and 3 abstained (Councillors Berry, Janes and Matthews).

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/177/03883/FULL relating to the existing public car park, St Andrew’s Place, Church Street, Ampthill, Beds. MK45 2EW be refused as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.