Agenda item

Use of land as a bus park upto 30 buses and erection of 3 containers to provide staff facilities (Use Class Sui Generis) (retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused;

2.    That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to confirm the wording of the reason for refusal in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead; and

3.    That highways officers conduct further research into the reasons for the rejection of previously proposed bus routes, and feed back to the Committee if required.

Use of land as a bus park up to 30 buses and erection of 3 containers to

provide staff facilities (Use Class Sui Generis) (retrospective)

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum, which confirmed that a petition in objection had been received following the publication of the agenda. Photographic and video evidence supporting the objection had been circulated to the Committee, at the petitioner’s request.

Officers referenced the member site visit carried out in July 2018. Since the visit, the Council had undertaken junction improvement works which were now in situ. Double yellow lines were also in place, although were not yet enforceable due to the raising of an objection through the consultation process. An objection report was currently being considered by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling.

The Committee was reminded that the application had previously been recommended for refusal, but was now for submitted for approval as, following improvements to the junction, the original reason for refusal was no longer applicable.

A petitioner objecting to the application addressed the Committee. Points included:

·         The application should be refused on the grounds of safety of motorists and health and wellbeing of residents.

·         Large vehicles such as lorries were forced to move into the lanes of oncoming traffic in order to navigate the junction.

·         Alternatively, vehicles had to cross pavements in order to navigate the junction.

·         Damage to the junctions could be seen in the photos submitted.

·         A ‘keep clear’ box had been introduced but was unworkable.

·         The road in general was a minor local road that was not suitable to large vehicles. There were points on the road where large vehicles were unable to pass each other successfully.

·         There was no benefit or requirement to have a bus park/route in the area.

·         Previous consultations had determined that the area was unsuitable for a bus route, and proposed developments were also in contravention of the London Plan.

·         Noise from buses and vehicles in the early hours was preventing residents form sleeping, which impacted upon their health and wellbeing.

·         There were concerns that if approved, further expansion of the bus depot would be sought.

Councillor Cooper addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Uxbridge South. Points included:

·         If successful, the proposal would not only result in more buses, but also more vehicles in general as bus drivers would need to travel to and from the site.

·         The extra buses and vehicles would not all be hybrid or electric, resulting in increased emissions.

·         The junction was not suitable for increased volumes of large vehicles, and the Councillor had observed vehicles performing dangerous manoeuvres at the site.

Councillor Burrows addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Uxbridge South. Points included:

·         The road was used by children attending a nearby school.

·         The junction did not work, with vehicles forced to mount the pavement.

·         Diesel engines used in the early hours of the morning would cause significant noise.

·         The report suggested that bus drivers would use public transport to get to and from the site. However, there were no bus routes in the area.

·         The objection raised by highways officers in point 7.10 was the same as cited when the application had previously been before the committee, but was included again and appeared to have been dismissed.

·         Under the proposed scheme, residents would only have two hours respite from vehicle noise, which was unacceptable.

·         A bus route had been considered previously, but had been dismissed as due to unsuitability and a lack of demand.

Officers confirmed that the objection at point 7.10 of the report had been included in error. Officers also highlighted that the Council’s record at appeals when citing existing noise issues, as in this instance, was strong.

Members discussed the application, and were mindful that the photographic and video evidence supplied had shown that vehicles were continuing to mount the kerbs despite the improvements made to the junction. The suitability of the junctions, and the road in general was also felt to be an issue. The proposed bus route previously rejected was cited as potential evidence of the road’s unsuitability to accommodate large vehicles, and the bridge near to Wallingford Road was referenced as potentially problematic for large vehicles to cross.

Officers asserted that the bridge close to Wallingford Rd had weight and width restrictions. Observations at the junction itself showed that vehicles could navigate it successfully, but the issue was driver behaviour. With regard to the previously proposed bus route being rejected, it was unknown if this was due to highways issues, or whether this was simply due to a lack of demand for a bus route in the area. It was agreed that further research would be conducted by highways officers, and if it was determined that highways issues had been cited, then the matter would be brought back to the Committee. However, it was noted that the junction had been subject to improvements subsequent to the previous proposal being rejected.

Members were also of the opinion that noise was a key issue for local residents. The sound recordings referred to within the report were referred to. Officers confirmed that the figurers of 72bd was a peak, and that the noise over a 15 minute period was 48db. Members were of the opinion that this was far too loud and well in excess of ambient noise levels.

On the grounds of noise, it was moved that the application be refused and that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to confirm the wording of the reason for refusal in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused;

2.    That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to confirm the wording of the reason for refusal in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead; and

3.    That highways officers conduct further research into the reasons for the rejection of previously proposed bus routes, and feed back to the Committee if required.