Agenda item

Infilling of existing ATM aperture area, fenestration changes including the replacement of a bay window with an automatic sliding door and replacing existing single swing door with fixed shopfront glazing

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Infilling of existing ATM aperture area, fenestration changes including the replacement of a bay window with an automatic sliding door and replacing existing single swing door with fixed shopfront glazing.

It was explained that the two related applications (agenda items 8 and 9) would be introduced together for clarity. Officers also provided an update noting that additional petition signatures had been received after publication of the Committee report. It was outlined that the first application concerned alterations to the shopfront (agenda item 8), while the second related to the installation of plant equipment at the rear (agenda item 9), with both proposals assessed only within the limited scope of their described works since no change of use was involved. Officers advised that design impacts, noise assessments and planning history had been fully reviewed, confirmed that no increase in background noise or breach of policy would occur, and recommended approval of both applications.

A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The petitioner had lived directly behind 34 Station Road since 2006 and spoke on behalf of residents of West Drayton, particularly those on Ferrers Avenue adjoining the proposed site.

·         It was expressed that although no change of use class was proposed, the opening of a Tesco store was considered likely to alter the established character of Station Road and intensify activity in a manner uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood.

·         Concerns were raised that increased traffic, delivery vehicles, parking demand, noise, lighting, and extended operational hours would be experienced along Ferrers Avenue and would directly affect the daily access routes and living conditions.

·         It was highlighted that parking shortages and congestion were already experienced by residents, and fines had previously been issued due to the lack of available spaces.

·         It was argued that planning decisions should have considered not only economic factors but also the lived experience of long?standing residents, whose quality of life could be adversely affected.

·         The Committee was asked to consider whether the proposed development would genuinely enhance the area or instead undermine both the character of Station Road and the amenity of those who lived there.

Councillors asked whether the resident had experienced any issues when the bank previously occupied the site that would not be experienced now. The resident confirmed that no such issues had occurred with the bank and noted that any problems would arise from increased Tesco?related traffic rather than from the former use.

The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         It was emphasised that the applications sought only fenestration changes and the installation of new plant equipment, and that they did not involve a change of use.

·         The agent clarified that a Tesco store could have opened on the site without planning permission, as the lawful use already fell within Class E, the same use class as the former bank.

·         It was stated that many objections related to concerns about use rather than to the physical works, and such matters were not material considerations in this case.

·         It was noted that, even if use were relevant, the site lay within a primary shopping area in a designated district centre, where retail activity was supported by local and national planning policy.

·         It was highlighted that officers had concluded the proposals were acceptable, would not harm local character or amenity, and would support the viability of the centre by preventing a sizeable unit from remaining vacant.

·         The agent added that, although the use was not in question, the development would also create employment opportunities.

·         It was explained that planning conditions could not lawfully be imposed on matters outside the scope of the applications, as such conditions would fail the required national policy tests.

·         The agent requested that both applications be approved in accordance with the officer recommendations.

Members enquired whether the applicant had a plan for deliveries and whether any such information might reassure petitioners. The agent replied that he could not confirm specific delivery arrangements but stated that Tesco operated rigorous delivery plans, all of which would comply with existing highway restrictions; he added that the store would also require separate licensing and that statutory nuisance procedures would remain available to residents.

Councillors raised questions about the size of delivery lorries and expressed concern about potential noise generated by the proposed AC units, particularly at midnight. It was explained that the noise impact assessment had been based on background measurement surveys, with plant noise tested against those levels, and that the submitted assessment demonstrated no harmful noise impact. When asked which hours the assessment had covered, the agent was unable to confirm, and officers clarified that the assessment measured background noise associated solely with the plant equipment, not with vehicle or pedestrian movements. Officers further explained that similar plant equipment already operated in the area, sometimes closer to residential properties, and that the submitted report had been reviewed by the Council’s noise specialist. It was confirmed that conditions had been imposed to ensure noise levels remained below background levels; any attempt to impose stricter conditions would likely be considered unreasonable and vulnerable to appeal.

Members were reminded that delivery management fell outside the scope of planning control. Councillors asked what engagement had been undertaken with local residents, including those living above the premises. The agent responded that no engagement had been undertaken by the planning consultant but explained that Tesco ordinarily conducted community engagement once it began fitting out a store, using designated engagement managers.

The Committee queried whether a noise assessment had been undertaken for flats located to the side of the building rather than only those at the front. In response, the agent confirmed that the assessment had been carried out against the nearest residential receptor but could not confirm the precise distance without the report. Officers cautioned against speculating on figures and reiterated that the technical report had been assessed in line with standard procedures, with no sound evidence available to contradict its conclusions.

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting was also in attendance and addressed the Committee highlighting the following points:

·         Councillor Sweeting supported the petitioners and many local residents who had submitted numerous objections to Members of the Planning Committee, Licensing Sub-Committee, Members of Parliament, and local councillors regarding the applications affecting the building.

·         It was noted that although the application appeared to concern only minor alterations to the former Lloyds Bank building, the resulting occupation by a Tesco Express would, in residents’ view, produce a major impact on the local area, adjacent businesses, nearby flats on Ferrers Avenue and Station Road, and the wider highways network.

·         The Councillor refuted the officers’ assertion that the development would not have a significant impact, arguing that supermarket traffic would inevitably exceed that associated with a bank.

·         Concerns were presented about crime and antisocial behaviour, supported by information from the local police sergeant, who stated that Boots—located nearby—was already one of the highest?crime venues in the area, second only to the existing Tesco Metro on Station Road.

·         It was argued that approving the application would effectively position the store with the highest crime rate next to the store with the second?highest in West Drayton, adjacent to a location where a murder had occurred in January 2022.

·         The Councillor concluded that, although the planning application appeared minor, its approval would have major long?term implications by altering the character of Station Road and negatively affecting local residents and businesses.

The Chair asked Councillor Sweeting whether she had any concerns about the specific works proposed, namely the infilling of the ATM and the fenestration changes. The Councillor confirmed that these alterations were minor and did not raise concern but that she wished to highlight wider issues that had not been presented to the Licensing Sub-Committee. The Chair advised caution, noting that crime?related matters were outside the remit of the Planning Committee and emphasised the need to focus discussion strictly on the planning application.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.