Agenda item - BH2013/04263 - Aldi, 7 Carlton Terrace, Portslade - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for variation of condition 12 of application BH2011/02857 (Application for variation of conditions 11 & 12 of application BH2010/01684) (original permission BH2006/00834)) to amend the hours of free parking at Portslade Shopping Centre from two hours to one and a half hours.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Application for variation of condition 12 of application BH2011/02857 (Application for variation of conditions 11 & 12 of application BH2010/01684) (original permission BH2006/00834)) to amend the hours of free parking at Portslade Shopping Centre from two hours to one and a half hours.

(1)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Steven Lewis, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application related to the Aldi store and car park in the Boundary Road and Station Road shopping area of Portslade; the original development had been 14 flats; the Aldi supermarket and smaller separate store. The original permission had been amended in 2006 in relation to hours of use; car parking and deliveries. This application sought to vary the hours of free parking from 2 hours to 1.5 hours, and this had previous been refused as it was felt the applicant had not addressed the impact on the vitality and viability of the shopping centre. Since the refusal additional information had been gathered by the applicant, using number plate recognition technology, to demonstrate the level of visitors that would be disadvantaged through the proposed change of hours. The data had indicated that up to 25 users could be disadvantaged each day; however, this was weighted against the greater turnover and effective use of the car park. The Transport Team had suggested this would allow for an extra 150 trips per day. The information provided by the applicant demonstrated the benefits to visitors and the wider shopping area. Whilst it was regrettable that some users would be disadvantaged it was considered that the potential for increased use would meet the aims of the original planning condition. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Questions for Officers

(2)                   Councillor Hamilton asked about the spaces reserved for residents of the flats that had formed part of the original planning application. In response the Senior Planning Officer explained that as part of the application five spaces were to be allocated residents; currently two such spaces had been laid out, and a recent application to change these into use for the wider car park had been refused. It was added that the residential company was currently in dispute with the supermarket operator about the purchase of these spaces, but this was a separate matter to the application before the Committee. The Enforcement Team had investigated the parking matters had not felt it appropriate to take action.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Duncan the Principal Transport Officer explained that the safe capacity of the car park would have been assessed at the time of the original application, but had not formed part of the analysis in relation to this application as it would not be material. It was added that based on the projected increased use there would be some increase in traffic.

(4)                   In response to Councillor Wealls the Senior Planning Officer explained that the surveys had used number plate recognition technology to assess the arrival time and length of stay of vehicles, but there was no data in relation to how far shoppers might travel locally whilst their vehicles were parked. It was also clarified that there was a penalty fine of £70 currently if a stay exceeded 2 hours.

(5)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Littman that the surveys conducted by the applicant were publically viewable as part of the planning application.

(6)                   The Principal Transport Officer confirmed for Councillor Mac Cafferty that the data in relation to the increased use had been compiled from a survey of shoppers at the Aldi store, and the additional data backed up this position.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)                   Councillor Carden highlighted the existing traffic problems at the site and in the wider area; he stated that it could take up to 15 minutes to access the car park and park.

(8)                   Councillor Hamilton noted that Aldi continued to be in breach of conditions on the original planning application. He stated that he had no strong views in relation to the application, but was concerned about the potential for additional car trips each day. He reiterated the problems accessing and exiting the site, and noted his view that the supermarket had outgrown the site.

(9)                   The Deputy Development Control Manager, Paul Vidler, noted some of the concerns in relation to enforcement matters, and provided assurance that the status of these matters could be confirmed outside of the meeting.

(10)               In response to Councillor Duncan the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that the enforcement history was not material to this application, and consideration should only be given to the application before the Committee.

(11)               Councillor Hyde noted that the hours of free parking had been reduced from the initial 3 hours; however, she failed to see that this could be of benefit to the wider shopping parade, and felt that 1.5 hours would not be an adequate period of time to use both the supermarket and the shopping centre.

(12)               Councillor Gilbey highlighted that it was already difficult to park in the area, and this was made worse by the frequency of trains which affected the level crossing nearby. She expressed concerns that 1.5 hours would not be enough time p to visit shops in the centre. She went on to add that she was not satisfied enough information had been provided in relation to the benefits for the wider community.

(13)               Councillor Wealls highlighted that the potential number of disadvantaged shoppers could in the region of 10,000 each year.

(14)               Councillor Littman noted that the proposed changes would disproportionately impact elderly people who may take more time to shop.

(15)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission was not carried on a vote of 9 against and 3 abstentions. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for the refusal and these were seconded by Councillors Duncan and Littman. A short recess was held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hyde, Councillors Duncan, Councillor Littman, the Deputy Development Control Manager, the Senior Solicitor and the Senior Planning Officer to draft the reasons in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee, and it was agreed that they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for refusal and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Hyde, Cox, Randall, Duncan, Gilbey, Littman, Wealls and Wells voted that planning permission be refused; Councillors: Jones, Carden and Hamilton abstained from the vote.

165.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee considered the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

              i.           The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the reduced hours would allow sufficient time for combined trips by the wider community between the store and the Boundary Road/Station Road District Shopping Centre and is has not been proven that the viability and the vitality of the district shopping area would not be unduly harmed by the hours proposed. The proposed development is not sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework as the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits.