From:	Trotter, Andy
Sent:	15 February 2012 15:23
To:	'Chapman, Gregg'
Cc:	Beardon, Sarah
Subject:	11/02729/OUT - land at former Shepherds Spring Junior School

Sensitivity:	Confidential

Attachments:	Y0369-120215-FULLY ALLOCATED PARKING.pdf; Alternate Parking schedule.pdf
Gregg,
Further to our recent telephone conversation, I telephoned Mayur Patel about the indicative parking shown for the illustrative layout.

I was surprised to hear that the residential parking standards as set out in Annex 2 of the Borough Local Plan are now being applied not as a maximum, as is clearly stated in the adopted document, but as a minimum.  This matter did not appear to be raised in the pre-application comments from the Highways team and I've been unable to find any notification to the change in policy, even if it is informal, on the Borough's website.
(It might be useful, if such notice doesn't exist, to highlight the matter somewhere on the planning policy web pages) 

However, whilst the application is in outline with all matters but access from the public highway reserved, I understand that, whatever the standards may be at any one time, parking is always likely to remain a contentious issue with any new development.  

Consequently, I attach an alternative illustrative layout (Dwg. No. Y0369-120215-fully allocated parking) to show how, with a few minor amendments, the illustrative layout for 50 units can provide for parking based on a 'minimum' standard.

The principal changes required to accommodate the informal minimum parking standards are a minor change in the housing mix: 
•	to reduce the number of four-bed dwellings from 6 to 2 and increase the number of three-bed dwellings from 12 to 16 
•	to change the FoG to a one-bed unit, and thus reduce the number of two-bed units from 28 to 27, and increase the one-bed units from 4 to 5.
All these changes are within the mix for the market houses; there are no changes to the indicative mix for the affordable units. 
There are also some very minor layout changes to increase the number of parking spaces serving the westernmost dwellings.  
As requested by Mayur, the allocated parking spaces are numbered according to the plot they would serve. 
  
I trust that the alternative illustrative layout will provide greater assurance that the proposed residential development of the site could accommodate the adopted parking standards applied as a minimum requirement.

For completeness, I also attached an Alternative Parking Schedule which accompanies the above illustrative layout.

However, given that the application is in outline with all matters but access from Smannell Road reserved, and the changes made in the alternative illustrative layout are minor and relate to reserved matters, I do not believe that there needs to be any further amendments to any of the other supporting documents which have previously been submitted.  

If you or Mayur have any questions about this alternative illustrative layout, please let me know. 
Otherwise I trust this satisfies the particular concerns raised through your consultations.  

Regards,

Andrew Trotter Dip TP (Dist), MA (Urban Design), MRTPI
Senior Planner and Urban Designer
Planning, Architecture and Urban Design
T: 01962 84 6113
E: andy.trotter@hants.gov.uk
www.hants.gov.uk/propertyservices

"A modern business delivering public services"

HCC Property Services, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire. S023 9DS