Developer successfully appeals against refusal of two homes along narrow Ely street - but told by Government inspector he must provide future occupiers with bus and train timetables
PUBLISHED: 15:49 24 July 2017 | UPDATED: 15:49 24 July 2017
A property developer who appealed against the refusal by planners for two homes along a narrow Ely street has won the day -but only on condition he provides future occupiers with bus and train timetables.
The condition is among 10 listed by planning inspector Graham Chamberlain after allowing the appeal by Live Residential against the refusal by East Cambs Council to allow to homes on land once owned by 11 and 13 Bernard Street.
Director Chris Senior twice tried for permission but the council, supported by City of Ely Council, objected mainly on the grounds of there being insufficient parking.
But Mr Chamberlain has allowed the appeal and noted how he couldn’t see how the parking from 11 and 13 would be displaced onto the public highway “as this has already occurred”.
He said the appeal scheme would have no effect on the availability of parking for these occupiers “other than to permanently remove any opportunity to restore the previous situation. But I have seen no evidence that such a situation is likely to occur in the foreseeable future”.
However in a list of 10 conditions attached to the permission he’s now authorised, Mr Chamberlain says that prior to the first people moving in Mr Senior must provide travel packs for the occupants – which must be approved in writing by the district council.
“The travel packs shall include details on public transport options and alternative methods of transport (Ely now has a Tuk Tuk service) “and shall be provided to future occupants upon occupation of the dwellings”.
Mr Chamberlain said it was not uncommon for properties in Bernard Street and neighbouring areas to be devoid of off-street parking. And he had not been presented with any evidence to suggest there was a highway safety issue.
He also gave “notable weight” to a transport study undertaken by Mr Senior which although not comprehensive did suggest there was ample street parking available.
“The absence of any on street parking controls also suggests that the area is not one that is suffering from significant parking stress,” he said.
The inspector accepted there were some areas of concern and he put forward a number of conditions attached to the planning permission.
These include an archaeological study and examination of possible contamination and a comprehensive assessment by the council of construction materials.