Issue - meetings

Councillor Sargeant withdrew from the Committee for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

The Committee received a S73 application to vary condition 14 of planning permission C/95/0110 (as amended 14/0505/S73) to allow delivery hours to between 07:00hrs and 22:00hrs Monday to Saturday and 09:00hrs and 19:00hrs on Sundays and Bank Holidays (Amended description).

 

The Principal Planner updated his report by referring to the updated recommendation on the amendment sheet.

 

Mr Elliott (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Hipkin (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.         Made a declaration of interest that he shopped at Aldi.

    ii.         Accepted that Aldi wanted the maximum of time available for deliveries as a business need.

   iii.         Part of the Planning Committee’s remit was to protect the rights and interests of residents.

  iv.         Residents near Aldi were entitled to clean air and tranquillity, this would be compromised by the proposal:

a.    Traffic levels.

b.    Delivery noise (day and night).

    v.         The Histon Road retail unit was busy. Another store would open soon on Newmarket Road, so the pressure on Histon Road should diminish.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection (as a written statement) to the application from Ward Councillors Payne and Chadwick:

      i.         The proposed delivery times were anti-social.

a.    Aldi and its delivery area were surrounded by residential housing, namely Windsor Road and Nursery Walk, where residents were already subject to disturbance from the delivery lorries. 

b.    The proposed extension of delivery times to 10pm would cause great disturbance to children and adults who may well be trying to sleep.

c.    To begin as early as 7am on a Saturday was also a time considered to be anti-social.

    ii.         The noise associated with the deliveries caused greater disturbance than Aldi being open.

a.    The disturbance caused by the delivery vehicles was not simply the increased heavy lorries entering the area.  There was also banging of doors, idling engines and shouts between the staff unloading vehicles.

b.    This noise level was beyond that caused by shoppers using Aldi. The suggestion that delivery times were legitimate because they matched the opening times of the store was a false equivocation.

   iii.         There was no need for this extension if the frequency of deliveries was not going to increase.

a.    The application stated that Aldi were not proposing to increase the regularity of their deliveries.  If so, there seemed to be no reason for the time extension.  Aldi’s need for “flexibility” should be compared to the disturbance to residents, the lack of sleep caused and the consequential reduction in quality of life.  It was more sensible for all involved for Aldi to maintain their current delivery system which appeared to work and avoid causing further disturbance to residents.

  iv.           The delivery management plan should form a planning condition.

a.    Welcomed the delivery management plan included with the application.

b.    Residents commented its recommendations were not currently being followed and the mechanism under which this delivery plan would be enforced was unclear.

c.    If this application was to be accepted, making following the delivery management plan a planning condition provided an enforcement path.

 

The Chair said that Environmental Health Officers were responsible for enforcing the delivery management plan, it was not a material planning consideration.

 

The Delivery Manager Development Management updated the Officer’s report by recommending a change to reword conditions to review if previous conditions need to be carried through to the S73 process.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that a management plan separate to the delivery management plan to mitigate the impact of noise caused by deliveries on residents.

 

This amendment was carried by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 2) to grant the S73 application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.         the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report; [and]

    ii.         delegated authority to:

a.    assess any additional third party representations received after planning committee as long as they do not raise new material planning considerations.

b.    Review the wording of conditions including: delivery times, acoustic fence, delivery management plan and whether any of the previous conditions need to be carried through to the S73.