Ref: A024414-1/RR/rr Date: 01 May 2014 FOA Mr Peter Price Gravesham Borough Council Planning Department Civic Centre Windmill Street Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU BY EMAIL Dear Peter SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD SAINSBURY’S STORE, PEPPERHILL, NORTHFLEET SECTION 73 APPLICATION – VARIATION OF APPROVED DELIVERY HOURS (LPA REF: 20140069) Further to our previous emails and telephone conversations regarding the above application we wish to make the following comments. As you are aware, the above application was scheduled to be heard at committee on 9 April. However, the application was deferred to allow the applicant time to fully consider the two conditions which were proposed to be added or amended, at late notice, should planning permission be granted. We strongly object to the imposition of the suggested conditions to the current application for the following reasons. Planning Conditions Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Necessary; Relevant to planning and; To the development to be permitted; Enforceable Precise; and Reasonable in all other aspects. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) provides further advice to local planning authorities (LPA) when imposing planning conditions to ensure that they satisfy the six tests as identified above. In terms of test 1, as above, the NPPG advises that the LPA should ask whether it will be appropriate to refuse planning permission without the requirements imposed by the condition and states that a condition must not be imposed unless there is a definite planning reason for it i.e. that it is needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms. WYG, Ropemaker Court, 11-12 Lower Park Row, Bristol, BS1 5BN Tel: +44 (0)117 925 4393 Fax: +44 (0)117 925 4239 Email: [email protected] Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill 01 May 2014 Page 2 In terms of test 3, the condition must be fairly and reasonably related to the development to be permitted. A condition must be justified by the nature or impact of the development permitted and cannot be imposed in order to remedy a pre-existing problem or issue not created by the proposed development. Test 6 requires conditions to be reasonable in all other aspects. The NPPG notes that conditions which place unjustifiable and disproportionate burdens on an applicant will fail the test of reasonableness. Furthermore, the NPPG states that clear and precise reasons must be given by the LPA for the imposition of every condition. Condition 34 In the supplementary report to committee it was recommended that condition 34, which relates to the customer car park, should be amended to include the following text: “for the avoidance of doubt the customer car parking and circulation areas at the front of the store shall not at any time be used for deliveries to the store or for goods loading/unloading and no delivery vehicles (Goods Online or ordinary delivery vehicles) shall be parked within the customer car parking and circulation areas at the front of the store at any time.” The application which is currently being considered relates to the permanent extension of delivery hours for the Home Delivery service operation at the store and for deliveries to the service yard at the store. The suggested amended condition, as above, does not fairly or reasonably relate to the current application as it relates to the customer car park. Furthermore, as noted in your committee report, there have been no complaints made to the Council’s environmental health officers relating to noise from deliveries to the store since December 2012 nor have any written objections to the current application been received. Therefore, there is no justification for this amended condition. In addition, planning permission has previously been granted on two separate occasions for these extended delivery hours which are now sought to be made permanent. At the time of granting both of the previous permissions the amended condition now suggested was not required. It is considered that the inclusion of this amended condition is unnecessary as there is no definite planning reason for it. In summary, this amended condition is not relevant to the development permitted, is unreasonable and unnecessary and so does not meet the tests as set out in the NPPF. Condition to Restrict GOL Delivery Vehicles Operating from Store In our telephone conversation on 9 April, you suggested that a further planning condition be added to any permission which would limit the maximum number of GOL delivery vehicles operating from the store. A maximum of 9 vehicles was suggested. 2 Sainsbury’s, Pepperhill 01 May 2014 Page 3 We consider that the imposition of such a condition is both unnecessary and unreasonable. As above, such a condition was not deemed necessary by your council when granting the two previous planning permissions for the extended delivery hours to the store. The updated Noise Assessment (March 2014) submitted as part of the current application provided an up to date assessment of the GOL delivery service. The Noise Assessment concluded that during a daytime GOL event current monitored levels are not exceeding the background noise levels at the nearest residential properties. Furthermore, a comparison of noise levels within and outside the service yard during a delivery event showed that the adjacent road is the dominant noise source. The Noise Assessment has been assessed by your environmental health officers who concur that the report demonstrates that noise from deliveries will be lower than existing background noise levels and therefore comply with the terms of the existing noise condition. Any potential noise impact from the GOL operation is controlled by the pre-existing noise condition. Therefore, there is no definite planning reason for this condition and it is not needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Furthermore, such a condition would be unreasonable as it would place an unjustifiable and disproportionate burden on Sainsbury’s. As you will be aware, the GOL operation is an increasingly important part of Sainsbury’s store operations nationally. To unnecessarily limit the total number of GOL delivery vehicles operating from the store would place an unjustifiable burden on Sainsbury’s and would not accord with the NPPF which seeks to support sustainable economic development. Conclusions Given the above, we consider that the imposition of both conditions would be contrary to the tests as set out in the NPPF. In particular, the conditions are unnecessary, not fairly and reasonably related to the development to be permitted and are unreasonable. If you wish to discuss the above matters then please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Rachel Robinson Senior Planner 3