The Planning Team Leader:
a. reported that planning permission was sought retrospectively for two pole mounted ANPR cameras, sited within a car park operated by NCP located on the south side of Motherby Lane
b. highlighted that an accompanying application had been received for advertisements at the site being considered under the next application on tonight’s agenda No:2019/0609/ADV
c. advised on the location of the site within Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area No.1
d. stated that the application was brought before Planning Committee as the application had received 5 objections including one from Councillor Lucinda Preston, and also a petition
e. provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:
· Policy LP25: The Historic Environment
· Policy LP26: Design and Amenity
f. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise which included a petition received from local residents
g. advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regard to:
· Impact on Visual Amenity
· Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area
h. concluded that the pole mounted ANPR cameras were minor additions within the car park and did not unduly impact on the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Jacqui Richardson, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the retrospective planning application, covering the following main points:
· This was not a typical city centre car park site.
· The site was surrounded by domestic houses and gardens.
· The cameras were not suitable for a conservation area.
· The cameras were sited just a few metres from people’s front doors.
· The applicant had shown no respect to local residents.
· Residents had tried to contact the owner but had received no response.
· She thought the owner wanted to sell the land and that was the reason he had instigated this action.
· It took six months to apply for retrospective planning permission.
· The owners would not have applied for planning permission if this had not been flagged up to them.
Vaso Vaina, representing the applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the application, covering the following main points:
· She represented the agent for the planning application as architects.
· The cameras had been upgraded on site from the technology previously used at the car park.
· She had no knowledge that the land was being sold.
· NCP had been informed that they needed to apply for planning permission by the planning authority and had asked her company to deal with this process.
· The new cameras recognised car number plates at entry and exit points to the car park at number plate height and did not view neighbouring properties.
· The cameras were mounted on poles due to fear of vandalism.
Members raised questions in relation to the proposed scheme as follows:
· Question: Were the cameras stand-alone features or linked to the ticketing system at the car park?
· Response: Officers were not sure. Customers could pay for parking at the machine. The remit of members here was to access whether the physical appearance of the cameras was visually acceptable.
· Question: What were the hours of operation for the car park? The officer’s report referred to little effect on the houses in the area.
· Response: Hours of operation were 24/7. The site had been a car park for 25-30 years.
One member suggested that similar cameras were normally at number plate height. These were too obtrusive being 8-9 feet up in the air.
Another member commented that the cameras were angled downwards simply to recognise car number plates. This seemed to be a good system in terms of technology and he couldn’t see that it affected neighbours.
1. The petition from local residents be received.
2. Planning permission be granted.