Agenda item

Variation of condition 6 of permitted application 15/02833/FULM to alter delivery times on Monday to Saturday from 07:00 to 18:00 to 07:00 to 19:30. [Guildhall]

Members considered a full major application by Clarence Union Developments for a variation of condition 6 of permitted application (15/02833/FULM) to alter delivery times on Monday to Saturday from 07:00 to 18:00 to 07:00 to 19:30.

Representations in objection were received from:

Andrew Dickinson, who raised concerns about the detrimental impact the extended hours may have on local residents. He also stated that the road was unsuitable for HGV’s.

Angus McArthur, who suggested that other stores, such as a Tesco Express in YO31, managed to operate with delivery hours shorter than the ones Sainsbury’s were originally granted.

Rosie Dickinson who stated that the recommendation of the Highways Officer should be reconsidered in light of the criticism levelled at the application for another store on Hull Road.

Billie Dickinson, age 12, expressed her concern about the noise on the road from deliveries disturbing her while she was studying.

Michael Askew, who spoke on behalf of Hope Church to reiterate that the church was ready and willing to take over the chapel and restoration works should the applicant withdraw.

Alistair Rycroft, the vicar of St. Thomas’ Church, spoke on behalf of both the church and his parishioners. He suggested that there was a ‘groundswell’ of disapproval within the local community. He reminded members that the original application had been approved by a small margin, and that this was only due to the concession of restricted hours.

Councillor Mark Warters also spoke in objection. He suggested that the committee would lose credibility were they to go back on their original decision. He reminded Members of the importance of protecting the amenity of residents.

Representations were then heard in support of the application from the agent, Gavin Douglas. He discussed the perceived impact to residents and stated that the extended hours would not increase noise or the amount of deliveries taking place, it would just allow for a later delivery avoiding peak traffic. He also clarified that the developers were creating a public turning head which would mean that all vehicles using the street would benefit from not having to reverse out.

In response to Member questions he responded that:

·        The background noise measurements taken were recorded by independent assessors at three points and at the location with the most noise there was little variation in levels between 1600 and 2000 hours.

·        That the agent was contractually obliged to lodge an appeal should this application be refused, and this would include the extension of delivery hours until 2300.

During debate Members discussed the impact of noise and general disturbance on resident’s amenity. Some Members felt that it was not up to the Council to ensure the viability of the business by extending delivery hours.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     The proposed variation of condition 6 to allow deliveries to be taken at or dispatched from the store up until 19:30 would if approved create unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the proposed and existing nearby residential properties by reason of noise and general disturbance at a time that many residents would normally be at home and expect to be free of such disturbance. As such the proposal conflicts with advice in the fourth bullet point of paragraph 17 and the first and second bullet points of paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework and with advice in policy GP1 (criterion i), and S10 (criterion iii) of the 2005 Development Control Local Plan.