Agenda item - BH2021/00282 - Unit 3, Goldstone Retail Park, Newtown Road, Hove BN3 7PN - Variation of Condition
navigation and tools
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda item
BH2021/00282 - Unit 3, Goldstone Retail Park, Newtown Road, Hove BN3 7PN - Variation of Condition
1. The Planning Manager introduced the report and gave a detailed presentation using enhanced visuals. Reference was made to additional information set out in the Late/ Additional Representations List.
2. Councillor Bagaeen spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor in support of the proposed Variation of Condition which was also supported by his fellow Ward Councillor, Councillor Brown. He stated that he had been concerned to learn that neighbouring Ward Councillors were speaking in opposition to this minor application which was located in his ward and on which as Ward Councillors they had received no objections. The objections seemed to have been led by the Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum who had no locus in this matter. The proposed changes were modest and were wholeheartedly supported
3. Councillors Allock, Ebel and O’Quinn spoke in their capacity as neighbouring Ward Councillors setting out their objections in respect of the proposal, having agreed to split the available time between them. Whist the store had been welcomed by many residents the change in servicing hours proposed was objected to as it could result in an increase in noise early in the morning and late into the night. Any detrimental impact would be greatest there and would also impact on new residents who would occupy planned development nearby. It was disappointing that consultation had not taken place with residents in their ward who would be impacted by the proposed changes.
4. Mr Forsdick of Lidl’s spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that there would be no increase in the number of deliveries and the proposed changes were being requested in order to rationalise existing arrangements and to improve business viability. Deliveries were effected with a very quick turn-around time and an acoustic fence and other sound proofing arrangements were in place to avoid any noise nuisance to the nearest residential dwellings.
Questions of Speakers
5. Councillor Shanks asked why the applicants had not sought a compromise on hours with local residents and Mr Forsdick explained that the proposed changes had been properly advertised and that measures in mitigation had already been put into place.
6. Councillor Osborne sought further clarification regarding current hours and Mr Forsdick explained that these changes would facilitate greater flexibility in the delivery of fresh produce such as milk and perishable goods outside of peak hours of highway activity in the vicinity. He confirmed that a noise impact assessment had been made.
Questions of Officers
7. Councillor Osborne asked whether/what account had been taken of the impact on new development and what weight could be given to that and whether it was possible to effect further amendments to the proposed conditions. The Legal Adviser to the Committee advised that the impact of the scheme needed to be taken into account but there would need to be a clear rationale for any changes to the proposed hours, they would need to be considered to be reasonable and it should be borne in mind that Environmental Health had not raised any objections.
8. Councillor Janio sought confirmation regarding the ability of neighbouring ward councillors to speak in respect of applications and it was confirmed that where an application abutted a neighbouring ward boundary protocol permitted this.
9. Councillor Henry stated that he considered that the proposal was acceptable he did not consider that noise or other nuisance would result given the location of the site. Councillor Yates fully agreed in that view.as did Councillor Childs.
10. Councillor Theobald stated that in her view as deliveries would be made under a canopied area at some distance from the nearest dwelling houses it was acceptable.
11. Councillor Shanks stated that whilst she would have preferred a later commencement hour on Sunday, overall she considered the application was acceptable.
12. A vote was taken and the 9 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted that planning permission be granted.
124.5 RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.
Note: Councillor Miller was not present at the meeting when the vote was taken.
- Header BH2021 00282 - Unit 3 Goldstone Retail Park, item 124E PDF 17 KB View as HTML (124E/1) 3 KB
- Plan BH2021 00282 - Unit 3 Goldstone Retail Park, item 124E PDF 235 KB
- Report BH2021 00282 - Unit 3 Goldstone Retail Park, item 124E PDF 189 KB View as HTML (124E/3) 80 KB
- Cllr Allcock Rep BH2021 00282 - Unit 3 Goldstone Retail Park, item 124E PDF 135 KB View as HTML (124E/4) 6 KB
- Cllr Ebel Rep BH2021 00282 - Unit 3 Goldstone Retail Park, item 124E PDF 294 KB View as HTML (124E/5) 8 KB
- Presentation E 1BH2021-00282 - Unit 3 Goldstone Retail Park, item 124E PDF 743 KB