Agenda item

Alteration to car parking layout

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Alteration to car parking layout.

Councillor Adam Bennett had declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he lived in an adjacent road. He left the meeting and did not participate in the deliberations and did not vote on this item.  

Officers presented the report. It was confirmed that the proposal was to formalise the parking arrangements in a private road and provide 8 additional car parking spaces. The additional spaces, in combination with the existing spaces, would exceed the London Plan (2021) maximum car parking standards which sought to reduce vehicle trips and promote sustainable travel modes. Moreover, the design of the proposed new spaces would result in residents existing their vehicles directly onto the shared surface, not a pedestrian footpath, which raised highway safety concerns. The application was recommended for refusal.

In terms of liability, it was confirmed that the Council would not be liable in any way as this was a private road.

A petition in support of the application had been received. The agent for the application and a petitioner were in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       The agent and residents understood the planning policy but felt a commonsense approach was needed;

·       The site in question was a private cul de sac. The parking spaces already existed and were in use;

·       Residents in the street had submitted an application to better regulate and manage the parking in Dyson Drive;

·       Transport Specialists had prepared a transport statement in support of the proposal;

·       The spaces were already provided on the street but were currently unregulated; formal spaces could be managed better and highways safety would be improved.

·       8 house owners had submitted the application – these homes include 14 children under the age of 9. Home owners had chosen to live there as it was a nice safe quiet road;

·       The resident in attendance had a 3-bed house with only one allocated parking space – this had been a mistake by the developers, and they had now made the land available to rectify the error;

·       The Council’s Highways report findings differed from the findings of the residents’ Highways report;

·       Non-residents often used the parking spaces – sometimes for months on end. Vans parked overnight and this was very disruptive to residents;

·       If the proposal were agreed, the number of car journeys would be reduced and the street would be safer for residents;

·       The reason for refusal quoted in the officer’s report referenced over-provision of car parking yet no additional spaces were proposed – just better management of existing parking arrangements. Residents were supportive of the proposal.

In response to queries from the Committee, it was explained that Dyson Drive was a private road. The matter had only been brought to the attention of the Committee due to the submission of a petition. The current parking situation was informal and not consented or regulated by the Council. Formalising it would consent the additional parking. It could set a precedent and would need to be brought in line with the requirements of the London Plan (2021) maximum car parking standards which sought to reduce vehicle trips and promote sustainable travel modes.

It was clarified that planning consent was required for the additional parking, but the Council did not own the road therefore could not enforce parking on the site or legally paint lines on the road.

Members sympathised with the position of the applicant and petitioners but noted that the Council was limited in what it could do to address the issue. It was suggested that the applicant should lobby the owner of the site to take action. The green spaces at the site could be used for additional parking. Health and safety concerns were of paramount importance. 

Members enquired whether officers could be requested to work with residents and give them advice. It was confirmed that the residents would need to approach the owner independently. Any proposed alternative parking solution would be brought back to the Planning Committee.

The Committee noted the health and safety concerns of officers. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.