Agenda item - BH2013/03146 - Waitrose Ltd, 130-134a Western Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Removal of trolley bay and creation of 2no trolley shelters and creation of 2no cycle racks within rear car park.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Removal of trolley bay and creation of 2no trolley shelters and creation of 2no cycle racks within rear car park

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site was located on the northern side of Western Road, and access to the car park was via Montpelier Road and exit via Hampton Road. The proposed shelter was typical of its type, and would be made from Perspex with a curved roof. Consideration related to the impact on the conservation area and the impact of the amenity of the neighbouring properties; Officers were of the view that that the siting would not be harmful, and the intended use was appropriate in conjunction with the retail premises. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Roger Amerena spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident; he stated that 5 listed buildings, and 25 residential buildings abutted the site and residents had no objection to the principle of the trolley shelter, but rather to the structures themselves as they were too long and too large. The northwest shelter would create difficulties for cars parking, and was located under a lime tree which would discolour the shelter when it produced sap. The shelters also acted as an attraction for antisocial behaviour, and residents had ongoing problems in the area. It had been suggested directly to the applicant that the shelters be relocated, but no response had been received, and it was also requested that a previous ‘code of conduct’ be reinstated, that had been part of a 1998 planning permission, to address the problems in relation to antisocial behaviour – in particular to issues such as lighting.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Hyde it was confirmed by Mr Amerena that the residents’ objection related to the location of the shelters and that the car park was continually lit all night, and added that the shelters would add to the existing problems.

(4)                   Councillor Davey asked Mr Amerena if the supermarket had a working relationship with the local residents, and in response it was explained that this had deteriorated in recent years, and the code of conduct he had made reference to had expired approximately two years ago; until that point the supermarket had been communicative with residents. He added that there had not been any consultation in relation to the current planning application.

(5)                   Mr Amerena explained, in response to Councillor Gilbey, that as the car park was lit all night it made the problems with antisocial behaviour worse.

(6)                   In response to Councillor Jones it was explained by Mr Amerena that the siting of the shelters was key to the residents’ concerns in relation to the application.

Questions for Officers

(7)                   The Area Planning manager clarified that the proposed shelters would not be lit, and the planning authority were not able to consider the ‘need’ for the shelters.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   Councillor Hyde stated that she now had concerns in relation to the application, but was aware that some of the issues raised by Mr Amerena were not planning considerations. The Head of Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, noted that the enforcement matters highlighted by the public speaker could be investigated outside of the meeting; Councillor Hyde welcomed this approach, and proposed that the application be deferred so that the Committee could be provided with more information; this was seconded by Councillor Carol Theobald. The Area Planning Manager clarified that the 1998 planning permission referred to did not make any reference to a code of conduct.

(9)                   A vote was taken on the motion to defer the application and this was carried on a vote of 4 to 3 with 3 abstentions.

105.2         RESOLVED – That the application be deferred.

Note: Councillors Duncan and Littman were not present at the meeting.