Agenda item

Installation of new plant solution and boundary treatment to rear of store.

Recommendation: Approval

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

Installation of new plant solution and boundary treatment to rear of store.

This application was considered in tandem with the previous application.

A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a representative of the petitioners was in attendance to address the Committee. The Chair reminded the petitioner that discussion must remain limited to the plant equipment and associated noise, as the broader concerns relating to Tesco’s operations had already been addressed under the previous application. Key points highlighted included:

·             The petitioner acknowledged that the application related only to plant installation but argued that the officer report had taken an excessively narrow approach, stating that wider impacts such as highway safety, congestion and servicing - referenced in Local Plan policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and London Plan policy T4 - should have been considered because the plant facilitated the store’s operation.

·             The Chair intervened, stating that references to deliveries and operational matters were not relevant to this application and instructing the petitioner to confine comments to issues associated with the plant equipment.

·             The petitioner then raised concerns about potential air?quality impacts arising indirectly from the development, arguing that the plant installation was intrinsically linked to the operation of the retail business. The Chair again clarified that such matters related to the previous item and were not material to the application under consideration.

·             The petitioner proceeded to address noise impacts, asserting that the submitted noise impact assessment did not accurately represent the likely disturbance from continuously operating plant equipment, particularly during night?time hours when background noise would be lower.

·             The petitioner questioned how continuous night?time noise would be mitigated and requested clarification on where comparable units existed locally and what noise assessments had accompanied those installations.

·             Officers reiterated that the noise report had been prepared by an appropriately qualified professional, assessed by the Council’s own noise consultant, and conditioned to ensure plant noise remained below background levels.

·             The Chair again reminded the petitioner that only matters directly related to the plant equipment were relevant and emphasised that broader concerns about Tesco’s operations could not form part of the Committee’s determination.

·             The petitioner concluded by stating that although some matters fell outside the strict scope of the application, the plant installation would have a “vicarious effect” enabling the store to operate, which was why residents had raised such concerns and signed the petition.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee Members highlighting the following points:

• It was clarified that the proposal related to a Tesco Express, identified as a small?scale retail convenience store.
• The shop floor area was confirmed as below 280 square metres to ensure compliance with Sunday Trading Act requirements.
• The noise assessment had been reviewed during the meeting, and it was noted that the first?floor flatted property, located approximately 7–9 metres away, had been used as the reference point.
• Appendix A (page 19) of the noise report indicated that the air?conditioning units would operate only during opening hours, anticipated to be between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., in line with typical Express?store operating times.
• It was stated that the refrigeration plant equipment would run continuously, as expected for such systems.
• Reference was made to previous site visits involving unauthorised plant installations that resulted in noise issues; however, it was emphasised that the proposed equipment comprised highly efficient and quiet models.
• It was asserted that sufficient evidence had been submitted and that no adverse noise impact was anticipated.

Members asked whether the proposed units were going to be connected to the building at ground level, explaining that the schematics were unclear. The agent replied that three units were connected at the boundary of the infill section and that one was positioned approximately one metre from the side elevation. He clarified that the units were located at the rear of the shops rather than at the front and referred to photographs that showed their position.

Councillors asked about the proposed opening time of the premises, which was 6:00 a.m., and questioned whether the heat pumps would be switched on earlier so that they would be fully operational by opening time. The agent stated that he did not know the exact answer but understood that the units generally operated during store opening hours.

Officers explained that a noise condition was being proposed. They stated that the condition restricted the maximum noise level regardless of opening hours or operational requirements. They added that different daytime and evening limits applied and that the evening limits were more restrictive.

Members enquired whether operational time limits would be monitored and whether noise monitoring would take place periodically. It was confirmed that the condition was prescriptive but would not be actively monitored due to limited resources. It was explained that this approach was standard and that enforcement would rely on residents reporting noise concerns to planning enforcement or to the noise team through other legislation.

The Committee then asked whether the condition was considered strong or whether it would be issued as an informative. Officers confirmed that a formal condition—Condition 4—had been drafted and would be enforceable, whereas an informative would not. 

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting was also in attendance and spoke in support of petitioners asking the Committee to consider the planning reasons for refusing the application.

Councillor Sweeting referred to Article 1.6 and disputed the assertion that the proposal would have no harmful impact on the highways network, stating that the existing network was already operating at capacity, with issues such as long queues and double parking.

It was stated that the AC units and gas cooler system, although producing low-level noise, would emit continuous sound, including a noticeable hum at night. Councillor Sweeting noted that similar facilities had previously caused disturbance to neighbours, leading to enforcement action by the Council.

It was further argued that the installation of the plant was essential for the supermarket’s operation, thereby establishing a direct link between the proposal and the impact on residential amenity and community well?being. Councillor Sweeting asserted that approving the application would prioritise developer rights over community rights.

Members observed that the proposed noise condition appeared stringent, particularly the requirement for noise levels not to exceed 40 decibels between 11pm and 7am. It was noted that this level was comparable to a quiet library or a refrigerator hum. It was further noted that, as the proposal did not constitute a change of use, matters such as deliveries and parking could not be considered. Councillors observed that re?occupation of the vacant High Street unit would be beneficial in preventing decline, crime, and antisocial behaviour.

Councillors considered the proposed conditions to be robust and noted that the Committee would require exceptionally strong grounds to overturn the officer recommendation. It was also recognised that any refusal might be overturned on appeal.

Members enquired whether the new fencing and plant enclosure would reduce rear access or increase pressure on on?street parking. Officers responded that the location in question was not an area used for parking by the unit. It was explained that a sufficient amount of pay?and?display parking was located directly outside the premises. It was confirmed that parking was not a material planning consideration for this application, as the unit could be occupied by Tesco or another operator at any time. It was reiterated that the only matters under consideration were shopfront alterations and plant equipment, and no parking spaces were proposed for removal.

Councillors questioned whether the shift from a financial services function to retail constituted a different use and whether the installation of refrigeration plant, which generated noise, might amount to a material change. They also asked whether the local authority had discretion to determine whether the change was permitted development or required planning permission.

In response officers confirmed that the Council did not have discretion to determine whether development constituted permitted development. Reference was made to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, which set out what did and did not constitute development. It was explained that the former bank operated under Use Class E(c), and movement to retail within Use Class E(a) remained within the same overarching use class. As such, no change of use had occurred, and the proposal constituted permitted development. Officers stated that this legislative framework had been introduced to reduce vacancy in primary shopping areas. Consequently, the Council could not require planning permission for the change of occupier or use when both fell within Class E.

Members sought further clarification as to whether the intensification associated with the new use constituted a material change. The Legal Advisor reiterated that movement within the same use class did not amount to a material change of use and therefore did not require planning permission. It was emphasised that this position was set out in law and not subject to local discretion. Members heard that legislative changes had been introduced to support declining High Streets and encourage commercial occupation to deter antisocial behaviour.

No further concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with six Members voting in favour and one abstention.

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