Agenda item

Variation of condition 12 (to extend the opening hours of the store) of planning permission ref. 51508/APP/2008/2927 dated 16/04/2010 : (Single storey canopy to front entrance, refurbishment and variation of condition of planning permission ref. 51508/96/1907 dated 16/04/1997 to allow use as an Asian supermarket, comprising 1,606sq.m main retail area, 69sq.m cafe area, 690sq.m bulk goods warehouse, 1,141sq.m goods storage area, and the utilisation of the former Garden Centre trading area as a 425sq.m covered trading area for fruit and vegetables. The proposal includes changes to the external appearance of the existing building, existing parking layout, boundary treatments, external lighting and associated bin storage/compactors).

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of condition 12 (to extend the opening hours of the store) of planning permission ref. 51508/APP/2008/2927 dated 16/04/2010 : (Single storey canopy to front entrance, refurbishment and variation of condition of planning permission ref. 51508/96/1907 dated 16/04/1997 to allow use as an Asian supermarket, comprising 1,606sq.m main retail area, 69sq.m cafe area, 690sq.m bulk goods warehouse, 1,141sq.m goods storage area, and the utilisation of the former Garden Centre trading area as a 425sq.m covered trading area for fruit and vegetables. The proposal includes changes to the external appearance of the existing building, existing parking layout, boundary treatments, external lighting and associated bin storage/compactors).

Officers introduced the report and advised the application was for the variation of Condition 12 only, to extend the opening hours of the store. There had been a trial of opening hours from 8am to 9pm Monday to Saturday and Sundays/Bank holidays from 10am to 6pm which had generated no complaint. The applicant had therefore submitted an application for permission to operate these hours on a permanent basis following the end of the trial and the Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) was comfortable for the condition to be varied.

The Chairman commented that Sunday trading was prescriptive and clarified that the applicant wished to increase the currently operated hours from 10am to 5pm by an extra 2 hours, and asked officers how it would be ensured that these hours were adhered to.  Officers responded that any planning approval would not override the Sunday Trading Law and an additional informative had been included in the Addendum sheet to bring the applicant’s attention to this issue.

A Member queried why the Committee could not approve the Sunday trading times it was minded to allow. Officers advised that the Sunday Trading Act restricted the amount of trading times and that the applicant was seeking the flexibility to choose. However, if the Sunday Trading Law did not allow them to do so, then it was not a planning matter.

The Legal Advisor added that the Committee was required to consider the planning merits of the time, rather than the Sunday Trading hours.

A Member raised concerns about the issue of a tannoy system raised under External Consultation in the report and stated that this would be unacceptable and would require further investigation.  

The Chairman asked officers to provide some clarification over this issue. Officers responded that no complaints had been lodged with Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) during, or after the 6 months trial when local residents where written to. Furthermore, it was not clear whether the complaint made about the tannoy system was referring to this particular store.

Officers checked the file and advised that the concern had been raised by someone living in Ealing borough and by a hotel business.

A Member commented that in the report, it had been stated that no response had been received from London Borough of Ealing. Officers added that the issue regarding the tannoy system could be further investigated by EPU.

The legal Advisor advised that it would be in the best interest of the Committee to defer the application for further information to be provided, if the Committee was not happy to make a decision.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for further information to be provided regarding the issue of noise made by tannoy system, and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be deferred for further information to establish what tannoy system was being used on the site which was causing noise; and  to be reported back to a Committee meeting for a decision.