Agenda item

Car parking area for five spaces with associated landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for a car parking area for five spaces with associated landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval. 

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. The petitioner referred to a summary document and photographs that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. The petition questioned whether the application was necessary and agreed with the highways officers commented that it was not clear why the applicant required a single access when there was already adequate access from within the church car park. This is residential cul de sac, less than five metres wide with at least two metres taken up with residential parking. The petitioner submitted that there was current access to the church and ample additional parking which was already available on the site.  The petitioner submitted that there was no valid reason why an entrance in the Sigers should be considered and the existing car park had sufficient parking with 30 spaces.  The church committee informed residents that the future intention was to have a new development on the site and the erection of a siding gate does not eradicate any concerns. Residents believed it to be erroneous to grant access which would lead to horrendous traffic and congestion. There would be disturbance to the long standing residential environment particularly as the applicant was seeking unqualified access thereby underpinning a D1 activity. The petitioner told the Committee that the application was ingenious and totally unnecessary.

The applicant addressed the Committee and told Members that the Diocesan of Westminster was very aware of the importance of preservation of historical buildings and environment, and had great empathy for residents affecting the local area. The applicant submitted that attempts had been made to keep the local characteristics of the area. However, changes to lifestyle and demands for architect planning and design meant that other practical, versatile and meaningful living spaces need to be introduced to suit contemporary lifestyles. The petitioner reiterated that the Diocesan would not be applying to create a cross over unless they considered it to be absolutely necessary. The petitioner submitted that the application was not intended to add additional pressure to existing highways in the area. It was the church’s full intention to ensure that any work carried out was done to a high standard and displayed sensitivity to the street and location.

In response to Member questions, the applicant confirmed that there was a planning pre app regarding the future location of the site but this application was submitted to tease out who owned the ranch and strip of land. The site would be used as a residential block for retired priests. It was also confirmed that there was an overspill for parking when mass was held. This application was mainly to ensure that a cross over was available in this location.

The Vice Chairman read the written representation from local Ward Councillor, Nick Denys, into the record:

Dear Committee Members,

I wish to inform you that I strongly support the petition against the planning permission for the creation of a car parking area for five spaces with associated landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover. The strong local objections to this proposal are understandable and valid. As noted in the report, a petition with 59 signatories has been submitted to you, along with a further 14 objections.  Please do take them seriously when making your decision.

I disagree with the officers conclusion that: “The proposal would not compromise the character and appearance of the surrounding area or unduly harm the amenities of neighbouring residents, whilst retaining safe access to the site and the parking spaces.”

The Sigers is a quiet cul-de-sac close to the heart of Eastcote town centre. The residents appreciate the cul-de-sac design as it stops the road being used as a cut through. I will not go further into the reasons why the planning application does compromise the character and appearance of the road, as has been clearly set out by the Eastcote Residents Association. I fully support their arguments, which are shown at the beginning of Section 6 of the paper.

I would like to draw your attention to the part of the application that will create a walk way between the Sigers and the Church. This is a fundamental change in the relationship between the Road and Church. It will allow people, for the first time, to access the Church from the Sigers. This is bound to increase traffic flow and parking when events are being held at the Church. I would ask that the Committee respects the current arrangement where you cannot access the Church and grounds from the Sigers.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Members noted that this application related to a quiet residential road and also noted the strong concerns submitted from local residents, particularly regarding the access and the impact on local residents.

The Head of Planning stated that the application before the Committee was about a car park of five spaces associated with the church. He advised the Committee to only consider and determine the merits of the current application, not any plans which may take place at a later date.

Members were concerned that the access was through a cul de sac and considered there would have to be some planning restriction for vehicles turning into the road. Members questioned whether officers would be implementing a parking scheme and whether there would be restricted to the car park. Officers clarified action on whether a parking management scheme was required would be on a monitoring and respond basis, and action would not be taken straightaway. A parking management scheme would be considered on a reactionary basis and a petition would need to be submitted to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling. Officers also confirmed that the car park with would be segregated so there would not be a through route.

Members were sympathetic to both parties, however considered that there were no robust reasons to refuse the application. Officers drew Members’ attention to the conditions which tried to mitigate some of the concerns raised by the petitioners.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, there were seven votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as per officer's recommendations and the additional conditions listed in the addendum.