Nine parking spaces at Dyson Drive, Uxbridge

What was proposed

The application sought nine off-street parking spaces by replacing soft landscaping and planting three new trees.

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

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is part of a residential development on an unadopted private road, with mature horse chestnut trees along its northern boundary.

“The application site refers to a relatively recently constructed residential development that forms part of St Andrews Park (the former RAF Uxbridge Site). Dyson Drive is located within Phase 3B of this development and lies within an area of land located in the southwestern part of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and changes

The proposal followed a refused parking-layout application and increased the spaces from eight to nine while adding three trees.

“A list of the relevant planning history related to the property can be found in Appendix 2.”

“The application is a follow up to application ref: 78464/APP/2023/3668 (Alteration to car parking layout) which was refused by Planning Committee on 14th March 2024. The main differences between the previously refused scheme and the current application are the orientation of the car parking spaces (which have increased by one space from 8no . to a total of 9no. spaces), which has resulted in the loss of soft landscaping, and the provision of 3no trees.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal an overprovision of parking that could worsen congestion, highway safety and sustainable transport, despite the site’s reliance on cars.

“The proposed 9no. parking spaces would be allocated to homeowners on Dyson Drive. The Design and Access Statement suggests that the proposal would result in the removal of cars parking along the road and would improve the openness within the street scene. Drawing FLU.CP.02 titled ‘Proposed Location and Site Plans’ shows the proposed layout , which provides the additional car parking spaces adjacent to the existing rows of car parking spaces.”

“As noted by the Highway Authority, the highway is a shared surface and the increase in formal parking spaces would increase the volume of traffic using Dyson Drive. The uplift in traffic volume would increase the potential for conflict with pedestrians and cyclists , which raises concerns on highway safety grounds.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and agent supported the scheme, while the lead objector presented a residents’ association statement urging refusal.

Members’ discussion

Members and officers discussed the failed parking controls, the purpose of the proposal, parking enforcement and observations from the site visit.

“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 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.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members moved and seconded the officers’ refusal recommendation, which was agreed in a vote.

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

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application.

“RESOLVED: That the application be refused…”

Minutes