A supporting statement with the new application said: “It is considered that given the officer support for the application, and the absence of any objections from the local highway authority, the previous refusal of planning permission was both unreasonable and unjustified.
“The proposed development, which provides a modest increase in floorspace, in order to provide enhanced as opposed to increased facilities, does not give rise to any increased parking demands that would justify a refusal of planning permission.”
Kirstie Taylor, the owner of the car park used by the surgery and neighbouring hairdresser and property, is opposed to the application due to fears of parking issues, along with other residents. She said she is consulting solicitors regarding ongoing use of the car park.
She added: “It’s ludicrous. How can you double something and expect nothing more to come down here. It’s common sense.”
She and other residents are calling for the former Bell Inn, in Church Street, to be converted into a surgery instead.
But the planning application states: “The previous planning application Committee Report inferred that car parking for the surgery was made available by the ‘ongoing co-operation of the landowner’ and inferred that the right of access may be retracted by the landowner.
“Both assertions incorrect; the applicant has a clear and inviolable right to use the land for car parking in connection with the surgery use, and that right cannot be withdrawn unilaterally by the landowner.”
It adds: “Fundamentally, these are private legal matters that fall outside the scope of planning control.”