Agenda item

The creation of 9no. off-street parking spaces and planting of 3no. new trees.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.

The creation of 9no. off-street parking spaces and planting of 3no. new trees.

Councillor Adam Bennett had declared an interest in this application therefore he left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this item.

Officers presented the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members heard that the proposal represented a stark departure from policy and was therefore recommended for refusal. The development would result in an overprovision of car parking and failed to encourage sustainable modes of transport including cycling, walking and the use of public transport.

A petition in support of the application had been received. Petitioners, applicants and the agent were in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The application was a resubmission from a previous application that had been refused due to highway safety grounds.
• The previous plan had sought to mark car parking spaces along the existing private road, which had been deemed unsafe.
• The current residents experienced informal car parking along the road, and the original plan had aimed to regularise it.
• The new proposal rearranged the parking to provide nine off-street parking spaces instead.
• The proposal included two allocated spaces per unit, in line with local parking standards but not in line with regional London Plan standards.
• The application did not initially include a BNG assessment, but it was recognised as a requirement.
• The communal grass had low biodiversity value, and the red line site provided an opportunity to achieve a 10% net gain.
• A condition was recommended to secure further details and landscaping to address the BNG point.
• Occupants of all 9 houses in Dyson Drive were in favour of the proposal.
• There was a lack of dedicated parking affecting households with young families
• The proposal moved the bays to be alongside existing bays, improving traffic flow and safety.
• The developer supported the application, and the design aimed to blend seamlessly with the existing environment.
• The spaces would not increase the amount of parking or volume of movement, as the cars were already parked informally.
• The proposal was seen as a proactive step towards a balanced and functional local infrastructure.
• The planting of three trees was included to secure biodiversity net gain.
• Issues with parking big vans and blocking cars led to police complaints.
• The proposal aimed to provide a safer environment for residents, including children.
• It was hoped the application would be viewed favourably by Councillors due to the family size dwellings and parking standards.

Councillors sought clarification regarding the main point of the application and how it could overcome the policy rendering issues. In response, the agent / applicants highlighted the existing highway safety issues, including refuse access difficulties due to informal on-street car parking. Members were informed that the current arrangements failed to provide safe access for refuse vehicles and pedestrians. The scheme aimed to move spaces currently causing safety issues to safer locations. Concerns about anti-social behaviour were also raised.

In response to questions from Members regarding the possibility that installation of the bays could actually result in an increase in the number of cars parking in Dyson Drive, it was suggested that double yellow lines could be installed and measures similar to those in neighbouring roads introduced. It was noted that residents relied on informal car parking arrangements at present.

Councillors asked if the spaces were currently allocated to houses and it was confirmed that they were not. It was mentioned that visitors to the town centre sometimes parked there.

Ward Councillor Reeta Chamdal was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

• Since the previous year, the residents had positively engaged with the private developers.
• It was clear that there had been an oversight by the previous developers in not allocating sufficient parking spaces in line with the rest of St Andrew's Park.
• All the residents supported the application.
• Most households had at least two cars.
• For busy families with young children, alternative and more sustainable transport options were not always practical.
• The residents were mindful of environmental factors and the impact on green spaces.
• The petitioners proposed to fund the planting of three additional trees.
• They were not asking for a major change to the streetscape, just to bring Dyson Drive in line with Kellett Street, which had two allocated spaces per house.
• The request for additional parking was not an expansion but a formalisation of the current situation.
• Cars were already parked alongside the road and across existing bays.
• By creating proper parking spaces, residents aimed to address road safety and access issues without increasing overall parking pressure.
• The Councillor encouraged the Committee to give serious consideration to the request and suggested a site visit to clarify the situation.
• The Councillor stressed that petitioners sought to formalise the current parking situation into designated spaces.

Councillors raised concerns about the parking space allocation when the houses had been built, noting that only one parking space had been allocated to each house.

Some Members did not find the request unreasonable and noted that, if the proposal were to go ahead, there would still be plenty of greenery. They expressed a willingness to go against officers' recommendations, noting that the proposal appeared to fit well and did not represent a significant change. Caveats such as yellow lines were suggested to prevent parking issues. Concerns regarding the current informal parking situation were raised and restrictions were suggested if the proposal were to go ahead. It was suggested that additional planting could help to address the environmental concerns.

In response to Members’ comments, officers confirmed that additional planting could be conditioned but it was noted that the reason for refusal was related to over-provision of parking, not landscaping.

Members sought further clarification regarding the weightage applied when considering policy in the Local Plan and the London Plan. It was explained that the London Plan, adopted in 2021, carried greater weight in decision-making and it was noted that, in the past, appeals had given more weight to the London Plan than to the Local Plan. The Legal Advisor observed that any departure from policy would need to be justified.

The Head of Development Management and Building Control clarified that there had been no oversight in the provision of parking and emphasised the importance of encouraging sustainable modes of travel. Members were reminded that the previous application had been refused due to concerns regarding highway safety and the failure to encourage sustainable travel. Officers highlighted the importance of being satisfied that these concerns had been suitably addressed should the Committee be minded to approve the application. Officers also questioned whether increasing the number of parking spaces would address the problem or whether it would lead to further issues.

Councillors asked for more information on possible restrictions and whether they could be conditioned. It was explained that parking control on private land could not be enforced by the local authority.

The Transport, Planning and Development Team Manager emphasised the importance of adhering to the London Plan's car parking standards to tackle environmental, public health and economic issues. It was noted that, were the application to be approved, this could set a precent for the entirety of St Andrews Park. The area could potentially become a car park for visitors to the town centre. 

Members questioned the weightage given to PTAL values in car parking standards. In response to this, it was clarified that the number of car parking spaces allowed varied according to PTAL rankings.

In response to further questions from Councillors, it was explained that double yellow lines on private roads were enforced by private companies.

At the request of the Committee Members, it was agreed that a decision on the application would be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.

The proposal to defer for a site visit was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. 

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.