Agenda item

The Chairman of the Planning Committee agreed to hear the officers report and member debate in relation to items 26/1069/RET and 26/1070/ADV as both items related to the same site.

The Planning Officer outlined planning application 26/1069/RET, Lidl, Billingham Road, Norton Application which sought retrospective planning permission for the installation of 4no ANPR cameras to existing lighting columns. The Planning Officer also outlined planning application 26/1070/ADV Lidl, Billingham Road, Norton which sought retrospective advertisement consent for 13no non illuminated pole mounted signs and 2no non illuminated wall mounted signs.

Planning application 26/1069/RET sought retrospective planning permission for the installation of 4no ANPR cameras to existing lighting columns.

Application 26/1069/RET had been assessed in full and it was not considered that the scheme had an adverse impact on the character of the area or wider conservation area/listed buildings, nor did it impact on neighbours’ privacy and amenity.  All material considerations had been considered in full and there were no valid reasons to refuse the application.

Planning application 26/1070/ADV sought retrospective advertisement consent for 13no non illuminated pole mounted signs and 2no non illuminated wall mounted signs.

Application 26/1070/ADV had been assessed in full against material planning considerations and there were no adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area or implications for highway and pedestrian safety that would warrant refusal of the application. 

The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main reports of both applications.

 Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main reports both applications.

For planning application 26/1069/RET the planning officers report concluded that it was not considered that the proposed APNR cameras had a significant adverse impact on the conservation or wider area or on immediate neighbours and it was not considered that the scheme was unacceptable, therefore in view of the considerations set out within the main report, the application was recommended for approval with conditions.

For planning application 26/1070/ADV the planning officers report concluded that the signage accorded with Local Plan policies and with the SPD on Shop Front Design and Advertisements and with guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2026) and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

- The Committee were urged not to treat the application as a retrospective "tidying up" exercise and argued that it required proper scrutiny before any decision was made.

- Concerns were raised about what was described as a wider national trend whereby parking enforcement infrastructure and signage were installed before the necessary planning permissions were obtained, with retrospective applications submitted afterwards. This made it particularly important that the Committee carefully examined the proposal rather than simply regularising works that had already taken place.

- It was argued that the application should not be rubber-stamped and that additional information was required before a decision was reached. A request was made that the application be deferred to allow further investigation into the circumstances surrounding the installation of the cameras and associated equipment.

 -  Clarity was sought as to the timeline of events, including when the infrastructure was installed and when planning permission was first sought. Concerns were also expressed about customers who had allegedly received parking charge notices, with a request that consideration be given to refunds where enforcement action may have taken place before planning matters were properly resolved.

- Questions were raised regarding the validity of the application, particularly in relation to cameras mounted on existing posts and a new column that was reportedly erected earlier in the year. Lidl staff had also queried why the cameras were being installed and suggested that the operator appeared confident that planning approval would ultimately be granted.

- The new column should not have been erected without the appropriate permission and that a fresh and properly constituted planning application should be submitted, and therefore the current application should be refused.

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

- Officers acknowledged that this was a retrospective planning application. The planning system expressly allowed applications to be submitted retrospectively, and the fact that development had taken place before permission had been granted was not, in itself, a reason for refusal.

- Officers understood that the equipment was installed in 2023, and the Committee's role was to assess the application on its planning merits.

- Parking charges, customer refunds, the operation of the parking enforcement regime, and the conduct of the parking operator, were not matters that could be considered through the planning process.

A vote took place and the application was approved.

RESOLVED that planning application 26/1069/RET be approved subject to the following conditions and informatives;

01 Approved Plans

The development hereby approved shall be in accordance with the following approved plan(s);

            Plan Reference Number                             Date Received

            08237-ZZ-XX-DR-A-900001 P2                16 June 2026

            08237 ZZ-XX-DR-A-990003 P2                21 August 2026

Informative Reason for Planning Approval

Informative: Working Practices

The Local Planning Authority found the submitted details satisfactory subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and has worked in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with the planning application.