Agenda item

Retrospective application for the proposed use of Storing/Displaying/Selling of Cars/Light Goods Vehicles within land off of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Hayes End Road, Hayes.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Retrospective application for the proposed use of Storing/ Displaying/ Selling of Cars/ Light Goods Vehicles within land off of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Hayes End Road, Hayes.

Officers introduced the application.

The lead petitioner attended and addressed the Committee. The petitioner noted that proposals included “storing/ displaying/ selling of cars/ Light Goods Vehicles within land off of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Hayes End Road” and was a retrospective application. It was suggested that the application had been submitted under false pretences as the stated start date was 07 March 2022, whilst there was evidence that problems had been experienced since 29 August 2020. The petitioner noted two to three years of evidence, and that residents suffered on a day-to-day basis.

The proposal would increase usage of Units 1 and 2, and there was a potential fire hazard, and lorries often parked in the main road due to over-capacity on-site. Vehicles often parked on Hayes End Road, although it was acknowledged that some vehicles may belong to other units. Furthermore, delivery vehicles often parked for 60-90 minutes at a time. The resulting noise and air pollution was negatively affecting residents, including children, and the overspill of parking generated a bottleneck. Reference was made of over 100 vehicles at the back of the site at any one time. Despite double yellow lines, there remained issues for emergency services, and one occasion on 23 July 2022 where an ambulance was stuck for seven minutes was noted.

Reference was made to the Mayor of London’s London Plan Policy 7.18 – Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency. There was already steady flow of traffic at peak times such as 08:00-09:00 and 17:20-18:00, excluding large delivery lorries from Hayes End. If approved, this would rubber-stamp what is already happening.

Members noted that this was not a wide road, but noted that from the images in the presentation, the exact number of vehicles was difficult to determine. It was noted that parking enforcement often led to subsequent retrospective applications, and the petitioner confirmed that this was the case. It was further clarified that vehicles from the site had parked in front of emergency gates/ broken the padlocks on these gates and used the area as a thoroughfare.

Members noted the nearby nursery, which the petitioner confirmed was directly opposite the site. The petitioner noted that parking in front of the private nursery entrance often led to conflicts with residents, and it was noted that several vehicles were parked on the double yellow lines on the previous day alone.

The applicant attended with a representative and disagreed with the points raised by the petitioner. It was highlighted that the issues with breaking padlocks was due to other businesses on Newport Road and not relevant to the current application. A nearby shisha lounge was noted as a possible cause of some of the parking issues. The applicant and their representative noted that the entrance and exit to their site was on Hayes End Road, not on Newport Road. There were previous owners of the current site who had acted carelessly towards residents. The current owners had only been in place for roughly six-eight months. The applicant and representative noted that they used only the space on their site (up to 40 vehicles) and were not to blame for excessive parking.

A statement from Councillor Davies as Charville Ward Councillor was read out. Through the statement, Councillor Davies commended the residents of Hayes End Road and surrounding area for their large petition. Councillor Davies completely agreed with the officer’s recommendation of refusal and believed that residents would suffer further were planning permission to be approved. Over the last 18 months, there had been numerous emails, phone calls, and letters from Charville residents complaining about the anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance from this site. As the Conservative Ward Councillor for Charville, Councillor Davies had seen first-hand the impact that this site had had on the local highway infrastructure and also the impact on the noise levels brought by the anti-social hours of operation. Residents, on a daily basis, had to suffer large Heavy Goods Vehicles blocking their roads, or parking outside their homes with the engines running, or unloading vehicles at all hours even blocking pavements, resulting in mothers with pushchairs having to walk in the road. Councillor Davies had received a report from one resident who stated that she had approached the landowners about a Heavy Goods Vehicle blocking the pavement and was met with aggression and abuse. Residents should not have to deal with this and should not feel unsafe when walking along their road. Since the opening of this site, residents had seen a large increase in vehicles parked along Hayes End Road, Hayes End Drive, and Mellow Lane East. Clearly these vehicles were from the Brandon Tool Hire site because the cars were parked with seat liners and floor covers. While completing street surgeries, Councillor Davies had witnessed people leaving the Brandon Tool Hire site and showing potential customers to a car for a test drive. This application was originally submitted by the landowner stating that there would be no more than 40 cars at this site, at any one time. Currently, to date, there were 62 vehicles parked at the Brandon Tool Hire location. Residents had had to wait for over 12 months for this hearing due to the disorganisation and mismanagement by the current owners of the Brandon Tool Hire site. As their Conservative Ward Councillor, Councillor Davies had put in a Member’s Enquiry to look in to see if any further action can be taken on this site legally to protect residents.

The Chairman summarised that the main issues were air quality, access for emergency vehicles and the number of vehicles currently at the site. Members endorsed the comments in Councillor Davies’ statement and questioned the scale of the issue and whether a parking plan had been submitted. Officers noted that this was a crammed site with no scope for manoeuvring. It was noted that the Highways team would usually require a parking management plan, but this had not currently been submitted. 

Members referenced the applicant’s note that a nearby shisha lounge may be partly to blame for the parking issues. Members asked if officers had looked into neighbouring businesses and how responsible they may be for congestion on the local roads. Planning officers further clarified that the planning submission was not very detailed, noting the lack of parking plan. There was not currently sufficient evidence to approve the application with conditions.

Members noted the impact on highways; that the Committee was not anti-business; and supported officers’ recommendations.

Members thanked the speakers and noted the congestion in and around the site, and also noted that planning officers had only little information to work with and further noted the lack of parking plan. Members noted the over-crowded nature of the site and supported officers’ recommendations.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.