Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 (Security Barriers) and Condition 3 (Service Deliveries) of allowed appeal decision ref. 94/236865 (dated 10.01.95) relating to refused application ref 36999/T/93/0878 (dated 08-03-94) for the Variation of Condition 12 (Trading Hours) of planning permission ref. 36999E/89/1214 (dated 01.05.90). This current application seeks to enable service deliveries between the hours of 1000 and 2100 on Sundays and bank holidays.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Variation of Condition 2 (Security Barriers) and Condition 3 (Service

Deliveries) of allowed appeal decision ref. 94/236865 (dated 10.01.95) relating to refused application ref 36999/T/93/0878 (dated 08-03-94) for the Variation of Condition 12 (Trading Hours) of planning permission ref. 36999E/89/1214 (dated 01.05.90). This current application seeks to enable service deliveries between the hours of 1000 and 2100 on Sundays and bank holidays.

Officers introduced the report, and asserted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely impact the amenities of surrounding properties by way of additional noise and vehicle movements, and for this reason the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner objecting to the application addressed the Committee, whose points included:

·         Noise from vehicles attending the site had been a problem for many years.

·         Currently, the only respite from noise for local residents was on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

·         Only one lorry could enter the site at a time, which meant many vehicles were forced to queue, producing diesel fumes that were harmful to residents.

·         When waiting, drivers would activate their refrigeration units, which were very loud.

·         Discussions had been held with Tesco, who had advised that drivers were instructed to switch engines off upon arrival. Not all drivers were doing so.

·         At night, drivers often used their horn to notify staff that they required entry.

·         The matter was a source of stress for residents, who struggled to sleep and rest due to the noise.

·         The proposal was felt to be a step towards 12 hour opening times. There was a large Tesco store nearby, that could accommodate consumer needs.

The petitioner was asked to confirm whether the nearby residents included families and children. The petitioner confirmed that this was the case.

The agent representing the applicant addressed the Committee. Points included:

·         The site conducted over 37k transactions each week, which amounted to over 2m per year.

·         The proposal was borne out of necessity, as the store was popular with consumers, especially at weekends.

·         Current delivery times could not meet consumer demand for fresh produce.

·         The proposed delivery times would not result in additional deliveries, but would instead help manage existing deliveries.

·         An acoustic assessment had determined that there would be no detrimental impact as a result of the proposed delivery times.

·         Deliveries that were currently being conducted at night would instead be conducted during daytime hours, thereby improving the situation for residents.

·         The applicant was open to agreeing to implement a delivery management plan, which could be conditioned by the Committee.

·         Some comments received from residents and the environmental protection unit, such as the use of the car park late at night, were not material to the proposal. Tesco worked with the Police to resolve any instances of antisocial behaviour.

The Chairman highlighted that the agent’s reference to ‘daytime hours’ was from 10am-9pm. The agent was asked to confirm that, if the application was approved, whether deliveries could take place at any time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The agent confirmed that this was the case, but that the Committee could condition specific delivery hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays, should they wish.

The agent was asked to elaborate on how the situation would be improved for residents, as he had asserted. The agent advised that that moving of deliveries from overnight, to the daytime, would result in less noise during the night.

The agent was asked how the issue of single entry and waiting vehicles resulting in increased fumes and noise would be addressed. The agent confirmed that this could be addressed within a delivery management plan, should the Committee be minded to condition one. The agent confirmed that Tesco had policies in place to control deliveries.

Councillor Bliss addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Yeading. Points included:

·         Residents had made multiple complaints regarding the Tesco site.

·         Use of the entrance gate resulted in traffic being backed up along the service road.

·         If deliveries were allowed on Sundays, the road would be open for all vehicles to use, further resulting in noise due to increased vehicle movement.

·         Tesco Management had not addressed the regular complaints.

Councillor Bliss requested that officers confirm the current delivery hours at the site. It was agreed that officers would confirm existing delivery hours to Councillor Bliss following the meeting.

Members discussed the application and felt that residents were entitled to the respite from noise currently being received on Sundays and bank Holidays. It was felt that the applicant had not proven that they could implement sufficient control measures for existing deliveries, and there was no confidence that the situation would be improved if the application were to be approved.

Officers highlighted that the reference to ‘customers’ within the report’s refusal reason referred to vehicles using the access road. It was also highlighted that the Council’s record at appeals when citing existing noise issues, as in this instance, was strong.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.