Agenda item

TG/20/02726/FUL The Co-operative Food, Malcolm Road, Tangmere, Chichester (9.35 approximate start time)


Relocate existing entrance to store, new external coldrooms, new window to side of property, new mechanical plant, new canopies and covered walkway and re-lay out existing car park including additional bollards. Reconfigure timber fenced areas, (resubmisson of previously withdrawn application ref no. 19/02707/FUL).





Ms Stevens presented the item to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which set out the following addendums to the report;


·       Revised wording to informative 1. The first line of the informative should read as follows: Provision shall be made within the Noise Management Plan for the incorporation of the following measures:


·       Representations:  West Sussex Highways Clarification (04.05.21)


I can confirm that the Local Highways Authority does not consider that the proposal would have and an unacceptable impact on highway safety or result in ‘severe’ cumulative impacts on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 109), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal.


The Committee received the following Speakers;


Mr Paul Martin – Objector


Officers responded to Member’s questions and comments as follows;


In response to concerns regarding noise generated from the site, Mr Thomson confirmed that his team had been consulted as part of the application process and that a site visit was undertaken to fully understand the layout of the site and identify the nearest noise sensitive properties.


Mr Thomson informed the Committee that two noise sensitive assessments had been undertaken by Noise Solutions ltd, and these had been submitted alongside the planning application. Of the assessment one focused on the noise generated by plant (AC unit, refrigerator’s etc) and the second focused on noise generated by delivery transport. The assessments had been evaluated and Mr Thomson confirmed that he was satisfied with the survey methodology, assessment criteria and subsequent results. In addition Noise Solutions Ltd had undertaken a background noise survey and applied the following background levels; 39db during the daytime and 30db during the night. Mr Thomson informed the Committee that these levels were representative of the area and were in accordance with British Standard; BS4142, and were acceptable in planning terms.


Mr Thomson informed the Committee that the proposed condition be applied; ‘that the plant which has been assessed and is proposed is put in, and if there is any variation from the plant which has been proposed and assessed then the local Planning Authority are made aware and another noise assessment is undertaken before installation’.


With regards to noise generated by delivery, Mr Thomson acknowledged that there would always be an element of noise associated with delivery.  However, the Noise Management plan that had been submitted would keep noise levels to a minimum and would be an improvement on current noise levels. He highlighted that there would be a restriction on the number of lorries and the time of deliveries. Mr Thomson emphasised that the noise management plan was very robust with a wide range of proposed measures included to minimise noise levels, such as; padding on tailgates and an acoustically graded walkway.


With regards to planting on the northern side of the site Ms Stevens agreed to amend the recommendation to include a requirement that any gaps in planting along the northern boundary to be filled in within native plants. This would be beneficial as it would provide biodiversity opportunities, improve privacy and help minimise noise.


Ms Stevens confirmed that there was no concern the development would have any detrimental impact to the tree and hedging roots located on the north east side of the development site.


Following Member discussion regarding the inclusion of Informative 1 as a condition, Ms Stevens agreed that the recommendation could be amended to include it, along with the additional comments stating that the noise management plan must include the measures listed in informative 1 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority; this would provide a degree of flexibility should there be any change in the operation of the site going forward.


Ms Stevens confirmed that there was cycle parking provision for four cycles, located on the southern side of the new entrance door.


Ms Stevens explained that the structure covering the walkway was very lightweight and therefore it would not be reasonable to request solar panels.


Mr Thomson informed the Committee that he was aware of a noise complaint that had been made to the Environmental Health team; the complaint had been dealt with and was in response to the existing plant currently in situ. He was unaware of what the outcome of the investigation had been, but reminded the Committee that the plant proposed in the application being considered would be a potential improvement.


In a vote Members’ of the Planning Committee agreed the recommendation to PERMIT.


Recommendation to Permit agreed, subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report, including the addition of Informative 1 being included within the relevant condition.


Members took a ten minute break.

Supporting documents: