Parking concerns at centre of development plan refusal

Slough council has refused controversial plans for a ‘carfree’ housing development over fears including a knockon impact for parking on surrounding roads, writes Sam

Leech.

The application for 13 homes in 39-41 Elmshott Lane, Cippenham, was considered during a planning committee meeting on Wednesday.

Scores of objections to the plans were submitted to Slough’s planning portal and more than 50 residents packed in to the council chambers at Observatory House to hear the discussion take place.

Developer Throgmorton Development Limited planned to demolish a One Stop convenience store and National Tyres garage at the site to make way for 13 homes: nine flats of one to three bedrooms and four duplex houses.

Speaking on behalf of residents opposed to the plans, Ashan Malik said: “The parking survey undertaken is pointless and biased, it’s just a sticking plaster solution to get the plans passed.

“It doesn’t take into account the current plight faced by residents on a daily basis.”

Mr Malik also raised concerns over the loss of the One Stop shop, which he said was important for elderly residents, as well as safety concerns forthe neighbouring Cippenham Primary School.

However, Ailish Collins, from agent Rolfe Judd Planning on behalf of the application said: “Due to the accessible nature of the location, we don’t expect every household to own a car.

“For those that do, the detailed parking survey analysis shows there is sufficient capacity on local roads to accommodate any additional parking demands – particularly during the peak overnight times.”

She added the developer had approached One Stop with regards to renewing its lease – the development features a ground floor retail unit – in addition to supporting a car sharing club, to help alleviate parking worries.

Traffic around the site would also be reduced by the loss of the garage on site, Ms Collins said.

Council planning officers had recommended the approval of the plans and officer Michael Scott advised that the council was under pressure to build new homes to meet targets.

Planning officer Ben Amey confirmed there was a parking shortfall of eight spaces, but also that publicly available data on injuries from traffic in the vicinity of the development was one, and was not considered ‘part of a pattern.’

Councillor Martin Carter (Northborough and Lynch Hill, Labout) described the plans as a ‘catch-22’ and added: “I’m never a fan for development for development’s sake but when it comes down to it, this development could result in less chaotic traffic movements and more traffic movements.”

Furthermore, Councillor Harjinder Gahir (Wexham

Court, Labour) also raised concerns that if the plans were appealed, there was a likelihood a council objection could be overturned – at a financial cost to the council.

Committee chair, Councillor Adil Iftakhar (Langley St Mary’s, Cons) however, one of the councillors who blocked the application, outlined the reasons for refusal.

He said the issue of parking ‘which had been extensively discussed’ was insufficient: as well as drawing objection to the impact on highways safety; the ‘bulky’ design of the development; and the risk of a change to commercial floorspace currently occupied by One Stop.

Three councillors voted to approve the application and five voted against.