Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/01178/FP MORRISONS SUPERSTORE, BROADWAY, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG6 3TS

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Installation of CCTV pole cameras and installation of valeting air/vac unit following removal of no.7 parking spaces.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 26/01178/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:

 

A)        The proposed CCTV pole cameras and air/vac units would result in an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact, appearing out of context and harmful to the locality, failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 of the Local Plan and the aims of Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

B)        The residential amenity if North Herts Environmental Health respond with an objection to the application.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 02 hours 20 minutes 31 seconds

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) presented the report in respect of Application 26/01178/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

·             Councillor Emma Fernandes

 

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             Some works had been undertaken before planning permission had been granted.

·             Existing CCTV cameras were not for consideration on this application, only the new cameras as outlined in the proposed plans.

·             The application had been submitted by Morrisons and the CCTV cameras were to protect the air/vac units that would complement the EV chargers.

 

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Ms Nicola Fox to speak against the application. Ms Fox thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             There was concern over the cumulative impact of the commercial infrastructure that would cause an intensification of the industrial character of the site.

·             CCTV cameras would violate privacy, and floodlights would light up their garden as per the lighting report.

·             The new assessment had not considered the cumulative noise impact of all the proposed development across various applications.

·             A response from the Environmental Health Team had still not been received.

·             The site had progressively changed over the last 7 years, and this had caused uncertainty and stress, which had affected their mental health.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Emma Fernandes, Ms Fox advised that a floodlight had been switched off after the Store Manager had visited their home, as level of their home meant that they saw and heard everything in the adjacent car park.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Fox for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Ms Jackie Sayers, to speak against the application. Ms Sayers thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             A similar application had been refused as seen at paragraph 1.7 of the report and living conditions had worsened for immediate neighbours since the EV charging points had been installed.

·             The cumulative industrial intensification of the area would have a major effect, rather than a minor effect as detailed in the report.

·             The noise impact assessment had not mentioned all the other noises that would arise from the car park such as car stereos and shouting above noise, and the cumulative effect of all noise should have been accounted for.

·             Two applications on this site, which had been refused earlier in the year, had not been detailed in the report and this application should be refused for the same reasons.

·             Paragraph 4.3.21 of the report mentioned that the CCTV cameras would face neighbouring dwellings, and the trees that screened them would soon be bare.

·             Concerns had been expressed by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation on the impact to adjacent properties, contrary to the report, which stated that they had made no comments.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

·             Councillor Louise Peace

 

In response to points of clarification, Ms Sayers advised that:

 

·             Existing floodlights had not been switched off in all areas of the car park.

·             They were planning to provide a verbal presentation on 26/00853/FP separately.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Sayers for their presentation and invited the third Public Objector, Ms Marlene Gray, to speak against the application. Ms Gray thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             Motor Fuel Group owned the car park rather than Morrisons.

·             The report acknowledged that the air/vac units and CCTV cameras, alongside EV chargers would lead to an intensification of the industrial character of the site.

·             This site was within the Letchworth Garden City conservation area.

·             The cumulative effect did not assess the combined noise of all the equipment, and granting permission was conditional on the response from Environmental Health.

·             A temporary stop notice had been issued at the site for the erection of floodlight poles, and more development would have taken place if this had not been issued.

·             An Inspector on a similar application held controls to prevent unacceptable noise and disturbance, and that site had not even been within a conservation area.

·             Members should account for Policy P3 in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which referenced cumulative effects on living conditions, and Policy D3 in the Local Plan, which required protection for residential harm to amenity, which provided the basis to refuse permission for this application.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

 

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             Motor Fuel Group Limited were the Applicant.

·             A revised noise assessment had been submitted on 21 September, and granting permission would be subject to receiving no objection from Environmental Health on this.

·             The application would not be reconsidered by the Committee if it was deferred due to the implementation of the National Scheme of Delegation later in October, and the decision would be made by the Case Officer instead.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Gray for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor David Chalmers, to speak against the application. Councillor Chalmers thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             There was a big question around how much more development they would allow to this car park before its character was completely changed.

·             This application could not be considered in isolation.

·             Substantial EV charging infrastructure, CCTV poles, air/vac facilities and floodlights represented a significant industrialisation of this car park within a conservation area.

·             There was concern over privacy as there was no field of view provided for the CCTV cameras, and the Committee could not properly assess this without more information.

·             The tree line screening the nearby homes from cameras was bare for many months of the year, and residents were entitled to know whether the cameras would overlook their properties.

·             Air/vac facilities were not appropriate here as there would be engines running, radios playing, and conversations from people using these that would generate noise.

·             There was a need for a CCTV field review and a cumulative noise assessment, and the Committee should refuse the application.

 

The following Members asked additional questions:

 

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Emma Fernandes

·             Councillor Ian Mantle

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

 

In response to additional questions, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             They could not comment on acceptable noise levels on behalf of Environmental Health, but they would be conducting their assessment within the 7am – 10pm opening hours.

·             A view splay would have to be agreed for the CCTV cameras where views outside the car park would not be permitted.

·             If Environmental Health objected to the application, permission would not necessarily be granted.

·             Clarification would be sought from Environmental Health on whether they would account for the cumulative noise impact of vacuuming, car engines and conversations.

·             The application could be refused for different reasons depending on what the Committee agreed, such as being contrary to the character of the locality or adverse impact on the residential amenity.

 

In response to additional questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that a covenant or transfer of a property document would be a civil matter outside of this application.

 

Councillor Claire Winchester proposed to refuse permission on the basis that increased development would harm the character of the area and have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of the immediate neighbours, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Emma Fernandes

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·             They would be minded to support refusal as there was industrialisation of the car park, which was in the middle of a conservation area in Letchworth Garden City.

·             Development may be more acceptable in another location such as a service station or petrol forecourt out of town but was not necessary or acceptable here.

·             Residents had made it clear that a small problem every day was a detriment to mental health and they had a right to live peacefully, which the application had not properly considered, and had not made an attempt to make better.

 

In response to points made during the debate, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that delegated authority should be granted to the Development and Conservation Manager as they did not know whether there would be an adverse impact to form a second reason for refusal, and to finalise the suggested reasons for refusal, as follows:

 

A)          The proposed CCTV pole cameras and air/vac units would result in an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact, appearing out of context and harmful to the locality, failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 of the Local Plan and the aims of Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

B)          The residential amenity if North Herts Environmental Health respond with an objection to the application.

 

Councillor Claire Winchester, as the proposer, agreed to the suggested reasons for refusal and to grant delegated authority to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons, which was also accepted by Councillor Martin Prescott, as the seconder.

 

In response to a further question by Councillor Ruth Brown, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that the Conservation Officer had not objected, which is why the conservation area had not been mentioned in the reasons for refusal.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 26/01178/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:

 

A)          The proposed CCTV pole cameras and air/vac units would result in an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact, appearing out of context and harmful to the locality, failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 of the Local Plan and the aims of Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

B)          The residential amenity if North Herts Environmental Health respond with an objection to the application.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of the item, Councillor Ian Mantle left the Chamber at 22:11 and did not return.

Supporting documents: