Agenda item

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

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused

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

Officers introduced the application, which had been previously deferred for a site visit.

Members considered the request to defer the item and decided to consider the application without deferral.

The applicant and agent addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• It was important to discuss the current application, and not future or other applications
• Many people were affected by the current lack of dedicated parking
• Safe and ready access to cars was a necessity
• After the previous meeting and site visit, the applicant had been asked to implement a controlled parking scheme. This had been implemented for six months but ultimately failed
• A large white van parked illegally had partially obstructed the road before it was clamped, and before it could be removed an emergency vehicle was unable to pass. Therefore, the controlled parking scheme was suspended
• A parking control scheme was considered integral, but due to the narrow nature of the road, parking must be off street
• This would allow for safe and clearer access for emergency vehicles, at which point a scheme could be reintroduced with far less kerbside, on-street parking
• Parking controls were effective when balanced with health and safety concerns, which the application addressed directly
• This application reduced the total number of on-street spaces, creating a safer environment
• Nine new bays with a smaller kerb area would limit overall capacity
• Residents could consider installing lockable posts to stop parking in the bays
• The site visit allowed officers and Members to witness a refuse lorry entering and exiting Dyson Drive, which does not have a pavement. Vehicles passed at speed, very close to front doors and windows, which was a safety concern
• The proposal would move these vehicles further away from residents’ homes
• The London Plan applied to both inner and outer London in equal measure, and in this case led to the opposite of what was intended, a less safe and healthy environment
• The Planning Committee regularly approved applications that deviated from planning codes when the benefits outweighed the policy deviation. In this case, the significant health and safety benefits and the reduction in anti-social behaviour far outweighed the single policy deviation
• Members had the right to exercise their own judgement and overturn officers’ recommendations
• A transport safety note had been submitted which set out issues of highway safety and anti-social behaviour
• Every application should be judged on its own planning merits, and in this case, there were merits and circumstances to overturn the recommendation

Members noted that during the site visit, the dust cart was travelling 5-10 mph.

Members noted that during the course of the application, additional elements had been required by officers. The applicant had provided on transport but not on parking enforcement.

Officers noted that there was an addendum which referred to a petition in objection to the application and in support of officers’ recommendations.

Officers highlighted that there had been little mention of the purpose of the application. Was it that there was inadequate parking or was it that people from outside the road were parking in it? The scheme had been determined with 1.25 parking spaces per unit. The petitioner had referred to installing lockable posts but this, in officers’ opinion, would not stop people parking and causing obstruction.

The lead petitioner in objection to the proposal had submitted a written statement, which was read out:

• This statement is presented to the Committee on behalf of the Hillingdon Alliance of Residents’ Associations
• The petitioner supported the clear, professional, and now reinforced recommendation of the planning officers to refuse
• The petitioner recognised that residents had raised a petition in support of this application. However, the role of this Committee was to balance the wishes of individuals against the established planning policies that existed for the benefit of the entire borough. In this case, the officer’s report demonstrated that the proposal was not a minor adjustment, but a significant departure from key strategic policy
• The officer’s report was unambiguous. The core issue remained that approving an increase from 70 to 79 spaces, where the London Plan allowed a maximum of 46.5, would be a knowing and drastic breach of London-wide policy designed to manage transport effectively
• Since this application was deferred in March, the applicant was given time to justify this policy departure. Their new “Transport Safety Note” failed to do so. The new officer’s report explicitly stated that the applicant’s note “lacks the detail required to address the reason for refusal” and provided “no evidence to demonstrate that a significant parking issue exists”. The Committee’s own site visit directly observed a refuse lorry navigating Dyson Drive without obstruction, undermining the applicant’s argument
• At this Committee’s meeting in March, there were powerful arguments from the Council’s own experts as to why parking policy matters. The Transport, Planning and Development Team Manager, noted that managing parking was one of the most effective tools the Council has to tackle the issues of climate change, air quality, and traffic congestion. The Head of Development Management confirmed that the current provision was not an “oversight”, and that this proposal represented a “stark departure from planning policy”
• The argument that this proposal merely “formalises” existing informal parking was also addressed by the officers. They questioned whether adding more unmanaged spaces would solve the problem or simply encourage further car use and worsen congestion
• Approving this application would set a dangerous precedent of over-provision of parking spaces, not only for the rest of the St. Andrew’s development but for the whole of our borough. It would weaken the Council’s ability to enforce its own policies and promote sustainable transport in the future
• The Council’s Planning Team Leader, Head of Development Management, Transport Team Manager, and Legal Advisor all spoke with one voice against this proposal. They are the professional guardians of the borough’s planning integrity. After a deferral, a site visit, and additional submissions, their professional conclusion is unchanged and has only been strengthened
• The Committee were urged to support officers, to be consistent in their decision-making, and to uphold the planning policies that were in place to create a more sustainable and less congested Hillingdon for all residents
• The petitioners urged that this application be refused

Officers’ recommendations for refusal were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused