Agenda item - BH2014/03715 - Aldi Stores Ltd 7 Carlton Terrace, Portslade - Full Planning

Application for variation ofcondition 1 of application BH2011/02857to vary the hours of operation of the store to read: The store shall not be open for trading to the public except between the hours of 08:00and 22:00 on Monday to Saturday, and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Staff may bewithin the premises between the hoursof 07:00 and 23:00 hours on Mondays to Saturdays and 09:30 to 17:30on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Application for variation of condition 1 of application BH2011/02857 to vary the hours of operation of the store to read: The store shall not be open for trading to the public except between the hours of 08:00 and 22:00 on Monday to Saturday, and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.  Staff may be within the premises between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours on Mondays to Saturdays and 09:30 to 17:30 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

              Officer Presentation

(1)             The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application related to the Aldi Store in Portslade; attention was also drawn to some minor errors in section 4 of the report. An initial acoustic report had been submitted which was considered insufficient; therefore, a second was submitted with agreement from Environmental Health. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Ms Ross spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local resident. She stated that she was representing all the residents that lived in the flats above the premises, and the site was unique as it was a mixed residential and commercial property. Since the store first opened it had extended the initial operating hours and now was open for 11 hours each day; residents already experienced noise from the store and the extension of hours was considered unacceptable. Since 2011 residents had had cause to make a large number of complaints relating to: breaches of trading hours; out of hours deliveries; loud all night noise from store refitting and staff work outside permitted hours. Residents also felt the noise report was misleading as it was taken from inside the store, rather than the flats above to measure the noise impact. In June 2015 the store had been investigated by the Council and was served a noise abatement notice. Residents wished to contribute to the noise report, but stated that Aldi had refused to agree to the study taking place at a different time of day. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

(3)             Ms Ross confirmed for Councillor Barradell that residents of the flats included children.

(4)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the speaker explained that a member of staff from the store had informally approached one of the residents to discuss access to the flats for the noise assessment. Residents were of the view that the store should formally write to all the residents and the Council; this had led to some correspondence between the store and the residents, but the store had refused to agree to noise recording in different flats at different times of the day.

(5)             The speaker confirmed to Councillor Hamilton that the store had been issued a noise abatement notice after causing disturbance at 0530 hours.

(6)             In response to Councillor Wares the speaker clarified that she complained formally and informally in excess of 100 times since moving into the flats in 2007.

(7)             Ms Mollart spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the agent representing the applicant. She explained that the decision to extend the hours at the store was a result of demand from customers and the proposed changes to staff hours would allow for cleaning, stocktaking and restocking. The previous application had been overturned on the basis of the noise readings submitted and since then the store had made numerous attempts to meet with residents to take new noise readings. The store manager had approached residents directly and they had asked for this to be communicated in writing – this was done and the store then gave residents three months to respond to requests to meet with them, during which time no responses were received. To overcome the impasse the store agreed to an approach with Environmental Health to assess the impact and this demonstrated that the additional hours would not have a detrimental impact – the store also agreed to limit the hours of use of the compactor. The representative recognised there had been problems in the past, but noted that the store was now working to rectify these.

(8)             The speaker confirmed to Councillor Wealls that she was not aware of any recent complaints of staff working outside permitted hours.

(9)             The speaker confirmed to Councillor Barradell that the store carpark was closed when the store was closed.

Questions for Officers

(10)          Officers confirmed that there was currently nothing that restricted the car park opening hours so it could be assumed they were the same as the hours that the store operated.

(11)          In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained that the Enforcement Team had had no contact from any complainants since summer 2015 and issues around the use of the compactor and bank holiday operation had been resolved with the store. There was an open enforcement case relating to condition 15 which stated that the store had to provide five residential parking spaces – which had not been complied with. Environmental Health had received two formal complaints last year relating to deliveries and use of the compactors; a notice had been served in relation to the use of the compactor – this was the rationale behind limiting the use of it  in the application.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)          Councillor Barradell stated she could not support the extension of hours as this would be unfair on the residents living above.

(13)          Councillor Hamilton stated he could not support the Officer recommendation, and he noted the unique situation of having residential properties above a supermarket. He stated he had objected to the original planning in 2004, and felt that the current hours of operation were sufficient given the residential properties above.

(14)          Councillor Wealls stated he did not support the Officer recommendation and had little faith in the store given the history of noise nuisance issues.

(15)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that the current hours were sufficient.

(16)          Councillor Littman noted that the application was not to the advantage of residents and would cause them increased disturbance.

(17)          Councillor C. Theobald noted that the store had not provided the parking as conditioned in the original application and she had little confidence in the store given the history of disturbance.

(18)          A vote was taken of the twelve Members present and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was not carried on a vote of 1 for and 11 against. Reasons were then proposed to refuse the application by Councillor Hamilton and these were seconded by Councillor Inkpin-Leissner; a short adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hamilton, Councillor Inkpin-Leissner, the Planning & Building Applications Manager, the Senior Lawyer and the Planning Manager to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These were then read to the Committee and it was agreed they accurately represented what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Gilbey, C. Theobald, Mac Cafferty, Barradell, Bennett, Hamilton, Inkpin-Leissner, Littman, Wealls, Morris and Wares voted that permission be refused, Councillor Cattell voted that permission should not be refused.

130.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

i.       Notwithstanding the submitted acoustic report the local planning authority remains unconvinced that the proposed extended opening hours would not result in a detrimental impact on residents living above the store. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 and policy SU10 of the emerging City Plan Part One.

Informative

i.       In coming to its decision the local planning authority noted the first-hand experience of noise infiltration given by residents of the adjoining flats.