The site contained a ground-floor food store with flats above. The appellants requested that the 22 spaces reserved for the flats should be subsumed within overall provision for the store. If the properties were marketed without parking, they argued, they were likely to be occupied by people without access to a car. In any case, they added, there was spare capacity on nearby streets.
The inspector accepted that there was no need to provide two spaces per apartment, given the site's accessibility by public transport. However, she considered that alternative parking spaces in local streets were not near enough to be attractive to potential occupiers. This was likely to lead to insufficient on-site space and unsafe and obstructive parking, she ruled. In her view, the appellants' claim that demand for shoppers' spaces exceeded supply was not supported by parking surveys.
DCS Number 100-069-182
Inspector Alison Lea; Written representations.