Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted with improved signage and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking to replace the Section 106 Agreement dated 28 September 1999 in respect of the car parking management.  The new Section 106 agreement to omit those parts of the existing Section 106 that are specific to monitoring through the use of a Patrol Officer and the requirement of the £20,000 commuted sum as this has already been paid.  

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the original application had included a Section 106 obligation for monitoring of the car park through the use of a Patrol Officer and the provision of a £20,000 commuted sum.  Two objections had been received but the officer recommendation was for approval.

            Mr. C. Murphy spoke against the application on behalf of an objector who was unable to attend.  He said that the Aldi car park management scheme and the use of cameras had been operating for many months without approval.  He objected because the applicant was attempting to get rid of the transparent process and replace it with cameras.  He felt that this would not be an improvement and that this scheme bore no resemblance to the original Section 106 agreement.  Mr. Murphy said that the cameras did not monitor the use of the car park and did not assist users in finding car park spaces but captured the car registration numbers at the entrance.  He felt that it created a lucrative revenue stream for the operator.  He spoke of a similar scheme in Northumbria Health Authority which had been installed but had since been removed.

            The Democracy & Governance Manager explained that neither the fact that the application was retrospective nor the arrangements at Northumbria Health Authority were relevant to the Committee’s decision.

Councillor Derek Butler proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that this application was an abuse of the Section 106 agreement.  He commented on the £20,000 as part of the original agreement and said that part of that application was that the car park should be able to be used for general parking and not just those who shopped at Aldi or visited McDonalds.  He said that the signs that had been erected could not be read and the disabled bays had been removed.  He did not think that there had been any mention of a time limit for parking in the original application.  He felt that the application should be opposed on material grounds as it did not adequately reflect the needs of the people of Mold.  He added that there had not been any evidence that there had been any gross abuse of parking in the car park and without any evidence he felt that the section 106 agreement could not be rewritten.    Councillor Mike Peers felt that the 106 agreement originally in place was adequate and was operating well and should not be amended.  He suggested that anybody that had been fined as a result of the cameras should be refunded as the cameras did not have planning permission. 

Councillor Chris Bithell explained that the car park had originally been provided by Aldi for its customers at no charge and no fines were imposed but this had led to abuse of the system and people had parked there all day for free.  He felt that the main issue for consideration was the siting of the cameras and the poles.  Shoppers were still able to park there for two hours.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that technology had advanced and that this was a fairer and safer system.  Aldi needed to be able to control their car park and he felt that the application should be approved. 

            The officer said that the original agreement was for a Patrol officer to monitor stays in the car park but it was felt that cameras were now more appropriate.  The cameras did not pose any visual impact and therefore the recommendation was for approval. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager said that the issue for the Committee was the visual appearance of the cameras and he reiterated the fact that the application was retrospective, the withdrawal of a similar scheme by Northumbria Health Authority and fines already imposed were not relevant to their consideration. 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd suggested that if the application was approved, then the signage could be made larger.  Councillor Richard Jones asked if the car park could still be used by general shoppers and the Development Manager advised that the original section 106 agreement allowed short term use by shoppers. 

            In summing up, Councillor Derek Butler said he was not aware of the two hour stipulation on the original Section 106 agreement.  His objection to the application was because the signs were difficult to see and he was not aware whether they specified a maximum of two hours parking. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application against officer recommendation was LOST. 

            Councillor Lloyd proposed approval with improved signage, which was duly seconded.  Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the signs should be located at the entrance to the car park. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was CARRIED.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted with improved signage and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking to replace the Section 106 Agreement dated 28 September 1999 in respect of the car parking management.  The new Section 106 agreement to omit those parts of the existing Section 106 that are specific to monitoring through the use of a Patrol Officer and the requirement of the £20,000 commuted sum as this has already been paid.