minutes - City of Stirling

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Based on the above calculations, no additional bays are required to be provided as part of this change of use application as it actually results in a small surplus of 0.4 bays. It is however noted that the above calculations are based on the assumption that the parking for the additional Consulting Rooms would be calculated together with the Medical Centre. It is believed that this best reflects the actual use of the parking, as in terms of the demand, it makes no difference whether these two additional practitioners operate out of the existing Medical Centre or a separate tenancy on the same lot. There will still be the same additional demand, with any overflow captured by the 10 bays. It is also noted that, based on the definition of Medical Centre it could be argued that the additional Consulting Rooms form a part of the Medical Centre as they are located on the same premises. If the parking for the ‘Consulting Rooms’ were calculated separately from the ‘Medical Centre’ the requirement would be for 8 bays to be provided (10 bays minus 20%). Taking into account the parking provision under its previous use as an Office this would mean the shortfall would be increased by 4.4 bays, bringing the overall ‘shortfall’ for the development to 9.4 bays. The above parking calculations as summarised in the table below:- Description Overall shortfall resulting from initial approval (6 August 2010) Overall shortfall resulting from ‘Medical Centre’ approval (24 May 2011) Parking provided for unit ‘a’ under its approved ‘Office’ use Parking required for unit ‘a’ as ‘Consulting Rooms’ for two practitioners. Number of car parking bays 2.1 5 3.6 Overall shortfall 4.6 Assuming requirement for ‘Consulting Rooms’ is calculated together with the ‘Medical Centre’ 3.2 It is furthermore noted that any potential ‘shortfall’ should not be considered as such due to the lease arrangement which is in place which allows for the owners of Lot 14 to utilise the adjacent shopping centre car park, which is located on land actually owned by the City. In terms of there being sufficient actual parking bays it is considered that the excess bays required can easily be accommodated in the nearby Shopping Centre car park, which has an historic over-supply of parking. A parking study was prepared as part of the previous application for the ‘Medical Centre’ which documented this oversupply, stating that the parking area typically operates at a maximum capacity of 65% even at peak times. The shopping centre has recently been re-built following a fire, and has now been in operation for over a year. Recent aerial photography indicates that the carpark is still operating with a considerable surplus of bays. On this basis, there is significant capacity and a lease arrangement already in place to allow for any additional parking which may be required to be incorporated into the existing shopping centre car park. The development should therefore not be considered as resulting in any actual shortfall as all required parking is accounted for. 256
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Conclusion The proposed use of the site as Consulting Rooms for a Chiropractor is in line with the objectives of the Scheme for the ‘Local Centre’ zone and will provide important medical facilities for the local community in a strategic location where people can access a variety of facilities in one stop. While it is not anticipated that the assessment of the application against the provisions of the City’s Parking Policy will result in any additional parking shortfall, it is considered that, even if this is not the case, any additional parking can easily be accommodated in the nearby shopping centre carpark, where subleasing arrangements are already in place. Based on the above, it is respectfully requested that the City approve this change of use application at its earliest convenience to enable the tenancy to be occupied and street activated." Comment As previously stated, the proposed change of use application will result in an increased parking shortfall on site. The parking shortfall is proposed to increase from five (5) bays to 9.4 (nine (9) – an increase of 4.4 (four (4) bays. The application does not propose to provide any additional parking bays on site. The owner of the subject lot (Lot 14) has entered in a sub-lease with the Wembley Downs Shopping Centre (Lot 30) which effectively grants them equal rights of access and parking over the adjoining car park. A copy of this sub-lease has been provided to the City as part of the application. The applicant’s submission claims that the increased parking shortfall can be accommodated for within the adjoining car park by virtue of the sub-lease. In order to substantiate this claim the applicant submitted a parking study of the adjoining car park which was prepared by an independent traffic consultant. The parking study found that over the peak period (10.00am to 2.00pm Saturday) there was a minimum of 48 unoccupied parking bays and a maximum of 75 unoccupied parking bays. The City’s Traffic Design Engineer has reviewed the parking study and concluded the proposed increased parking shortfall from five (5) bays to 9.4 (9) bays can be accommodated for within the adjoining car park by virtue of the reciprocal parking arrangement. It is considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the additional parking bays required by the proposed consulting rooms can be accommodated for within the adjoining car park. The parking study confirms that there are a minimum number of 45 unoccupied parking bays during the peak period. This statistic indicates that there is clearly a surplus of parking bays within the adjoining car park to comfortably accommodate an increased technical parking shortfall of 4.4 (4) bays on site. The proposed change of use from office to consulting rooms is not considered to result in a parking problem within the vicinity, and will therefore not detract from amenity of the locality. Policy and Legislative Implications Should the Council refuse the application for development approval, the applicant may have the right to have the decision reviewed in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. 257
Page 1 and 2:
MINUTES ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
Page 5 and 6:
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE 10.1/AP7 LOT 678,
Page 7 and 8:
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
125 MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206: MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 255: MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 299 and 300: 299 MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361:
show all

minutes - City of Stirling

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?