Agenda item

Construction of car park consisting of 150 parking spaces (as well as space for motor cycle parking).Re-consultation following receipt of revised plans, additional and amended supporting reports and amended application form.

Recommendation:

Approval, subject to no objections from Natural England and any additional conditions Natural England may seek to impose and the conditions as stated in the officer report.

Construction of car park consisting of 150 parking spaces (as well as

space for motor cycle parking).Re-consultation following receipt of revised plans, additional and amended supporting reports and amended application form

Officers introduced the report which concerned an application for the construction of a car park (as well as space for motor cycle parking) at Ruislip Lido. The officer presentation included a comprehensive overview of the report and highlighted a number of significant issues including: the proposed design of the scheme, access and egress details and proposed planting and landscaping changes.

Officers explained that the car park was essential to the use of the Lido for open air recreation. The Committee were informed that the existing car park facility was not of sufficient size to accommodate Lido visitors at peak times and this had resulted in high levels of on-street parking in the surrounding area. The proposed car park would help alleviate this problem and also encourage further use of the Lido facilities. Officers advised that the benefits of the car park amounted to very special circumstances and as such, there was not an in principle objection to the scheme.

Officers explained that to be useful and convenient, the car park would need to be located close to the Lido. With regards to access, officers explained that the site had been used as a car park historically and so there was no need to create a new access way through green belt land. Officers explained that alternative sites for the car park had been considered but not been taken forward as they were subject to flood risk. Furthermore, site surveys had confirmed that from an ecological perspective, the application site was less sensitive than surrounding areas.

Officers provided a summary of the changes as set out in the Addendum sheet which included an explanation of the changes to the proposed conditions and the rational behind proposed new informatives. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the comments of Natural England as set out in Addendum Appendix 1 and the comments provided by the Chair of the Friends of Ruislip Lido as set out in Appendix 2.

Photographs illustrating historic parking problems at the Lido and the displacement of parking to surrounding roads were also circulated amongst the Committee for their information.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, representatives of the petitions received in objection to the proposal were invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners included:

Abuse of Process

• The application had recently been subject to re-consultation on 22^nd June 2012 which had provided only 14 days for responses. The Planning Committee had also been arranged less than one week after close of consultation with the officer’s report being produced several days before the end of the consultation period.
• The report did not address all of the issues raised in residents’ objection letters. Therefore, the petitioners explained that if a decision was made to approve the application, they considered such action would be an abuse of process under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
• It was highlighted that the applicant had continued to make alterations to the application including an amended plan placed on the planning website on the 4th July, after the planning report had been published.

• It was noted that there was another planning application awaiting submission which was linked to the application and as both applications would not be considered at the same time, the Ruislip Lido application should be withdrawn and resubmitted.

Necessity

• The applicant had not produced any evidence to substantiate that there were “very special circumstances” to permit the development as a departure from the Development Plan.
• The photographs circulated by officers at the start of the meeting were not taken by Council officers and had been misused.

Safety

• There already were complex ingress and egress arrangements on the site. The proposed development would introduce an additional vehicular access into the Lido which would pose a danger to disabled persons.
• Flood Risk - the proposed development would be located in the flood plain which would increase this risk.
• The proposed development would compromise safety, paves over the green belt and was a waste of money.

Environmental Issues

The proposed development was objected to on the following grounds:

• The proposed development would pose a threat to 3 species of reptiles
• The proposed development was located in the green belt
• The report failed to mention that other forms of wildlife had been found in the Lido habitat, including adders
• Bats had been ignored and bat and bird boxes had recently been removed
• The report had failed to demonstrate that alternative sites had been considered
• Willow Lawn is a peaceful picnic area and would become polluted from vehicular movement

Other Issues

• The cost of the proposed development would be disproportionate
•  The report fails to demonstrate the impact of the proposal
• The proposal was in conflict with the Council’s car park and climate change policy.
• The proposal was in conflict with the Council’s Sustainability Strategy
• The proposal was ill conceived and no very special circumstances existed to permit the development.

Three Ward Councillors addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

• All 3 Ward Councillors supported the officer recommendation to approve the construction of the car park as they agreed  there was an over riding long term need  for greater capacity at the Lido site
• All 3 ward Councillors were long term users of the Lido and agreed that there was a historic problem of displaced parking, where by the lack of capacity in the existing car park meant Lido visitors often parked in the surrounding area in inappropriate locations and further car parking capacity was required.
• A ward Councillor had been approached by residents to re-instate the car park (previously situated on Willow Lawn)
• The ward Councillors were disappointed that their concerns had not been included in the officer report
• It was noted that Hillingdon had the highest car ownership per capita of any London Borough and there did not appear to be a viable alternative (which had included investigating the possibilities arising from park and ride schemes) to increasing the number of car parking spaces at the Lido
• The proposed site of the car park was of less ecological value than surrounding areas and it was agreed that the proposed planting scheme of trees and hedges in and around the car park would go some way to mitigating its impact
• That officers be encouraged to take those steps necessary to allow pedestrians to walk around the Lido and that a pathway around Willow Lawn should be incorporated into the design

Before deliberations began, the Chairman reassured the Committee that all planning applications received by the Planning Department were processed in the same way and the requisite notice for the meeting and agenda paperwork had been provided.

Officers were aware that there was a high level of public interest in the application which was why a special meeting had been convened and moved from Committee Room 5 to the Council Chamber to provide an opportunity for a greater number of the public to attend the meeting. The Chairman concluded his opening remarks by explaining that a number of minor amendments (as set out in the Addendum) was not uncommon practice.

In bringing the application to Committee, the Legal Officer confirmed that due process had been followed.

In discussing the application, Members asked officers to clarify the type of fencing proposed bordering the road and Willow Lawn and also whether a green surface could be used in the car park.

In response, Officers confirmed that a combination of bollards and a timber fence and rail were proposed although they suggested that the exact specification of the proposed fence could be dealt with through condition. With regards to the surface of the car park, Officers confirmed that no preference was proposed.

With reference to the Officer presentation which highlighted that Willow Lawn had been used as car park before, Members enquired when it ceased to be a car park and the reasons for this. Officers clarified that Willow Lawn stopped being used as a car park in 1981/2, although they were unsure why this was stopped.

Concerns were raised about the type of surface proposed for the car park and what the likely drainage implications of this might be. Members were adamant that surface run off should not drain directly into the Lido (and this included the issues posed by salt water run-off in the winter as a result of gritting). In response, Officers confirmed that any surface run-off from the car park would have a negligible ecological impact given the expanse of water at the Lido. Officers explained that a combination of oil and petrol interceptors would be used in conjunction with natural shales and a system of pipes to ensure extensive measures were taken to mitigate the impact arising from the car park. It was noted that Natural England had reviewed the suggested proposals and had not raised any objections to them.

Members noted that the applicants had requested the proposal to include the provision of an additional 150 car parking spaces and asked for further details to be provided about how this figure had been calculated. In response, Officers confirmed that there were two sources of demand. Firstly, the car park had to provide an overflow to existing facilities, and secondly, the car park needed to take into account an anticipated growth in visitors to the Lido as a result of the Council’s improvements programme (to the Lido). Officers confirmed that the applicant and the Highways Engineer had calculated the anticipated number of spaces but a further operational study would be required before construction could commence.

The Committee agreed that calculating anticipated demand and providing hard figures was difficult especially as demand at the Lido site was not strictly seasonal.

Further discussions took place about the access. Members enquired whether it would be possible to condition the inclusion of a pathway to ensure that there was access around the entire site all year round.  Officers explained that this could be incorporated into the proposal through the inclusion of an additional condition.

It was moved and seconded and on being put to the vote, that the application be approved.

Resolved –

On being put to the vote, the officer recommendation was agreed subject to the changes set out in the addendum and the inclusion of an extra condition for a footpath around Willow Lawn to be agreed by the Chairman and Labour Lead outside the meeting (as set out below)  with 5 votes in favour and 2 objections to approve the application

"Not withstanding the approved plans, prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details of a footpath on the south east side of the access road, leading from Reservoir Road to the new Car Park, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Such details shall include means of construction, the phasing of development works construction management, access arrangements means of surfacing and tree protection. The approved footpath shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the car park hereby approved is brought into use, and shall be permanently retained for so long as the development remains in existence.

REASON

To ensure pedestrian safety and to ensure access is maintained and improved to the countryside, to all sections of the community, in accordance with Policies AM7 and OL19 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007)."