ANPR camera at North Eastern Co-Operative, Marske-by-the-Sea, Redcar

What was proposed

The application proposed a pole-mounted automatic number plate recognition camera in the supermarket car park, with the camera 3.87 metres above ground.

“The planning application is for the provision of the pole mounted automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera. The camera would be installed on the northern side of the access road alongside the southern elevation of the leisure centre building. The camera would be mounted on a pole and would be 3.87m from the ground level.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a supermarket car park within Marske designated centre, outside the conservation area although the store and access road are inside it.

“The proposal relates to the Co-Op supermarket car park in Marske by the Sea. The application site forms part of Marske designated centre. The boundary of Marske Conservation area runs along the rear elevation of the Co-op building so while the store and access road are within the Conservation Area the car park is outside of the Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Application history

Historic records relate to the supermarket use and were not considered particularly relevant; a separate application sought advertisement consent for 14 car park signs.

“The planning history reflects the Supermarket use of the site. None of the historic records are considered to be of any particular relevance to the consideration of this application.”

“R/2025/0812/AC. Display of 14 non-illuminated pole mounted car park signs in rear car park.”

Officer report

The main planning issues

The assessment considered the principle of development, the area’s character, neighbour amenity and highway safety.

“The main considerations in the assessment of the application are;”

“The principle of development • The impacts on the character and appearance of the area • The impacts on neighbour amenity • The impacts on highways safety…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The conservation officer had no objection, while the parish council objected over shared parking, land ownership and the effect on community use.

“Objection on the grounds it is a shared car park. Ownership of the land needs to be established. Is the land owned by the Co Op or given by Lord Zetland to the people of Marske? Concerns about the restriction on community use by the wider impact of this proposal. Councillors would also like to express the view that the main council should check land ownership and any conditions upon the existing planning consent for the supermarket…”

“Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Conservation Officer) (18/12/2025)”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Thirty-one objections raised concerns about parking restrictions, displacement, privacy, the need for the camera and effects on businesses and the area’s character; 20 representations supported it.

“Time restrictions for parking impacts on the Leisure / Community Centre, and Marske Centre Business’. • Ownership of the Car Park and Co Operatives ability to impose the restrictions, questions as to whether there are any covenants/ restrictions upon the ability to restrict parking. • Ability to maintain the boundary walls. • Are the number of signs necessary.”

“Are the posts necessary. • Parking will be dispersed onto surrounding areas. • Parking cameras are not needed • Intrusion on privacy from recording of visits • Impacts on the character of the area from the loss of the parking provision 20 support representations which make the following comments:”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors, a representative for the Ward Councillor and the applicant’s representative addressed the committee.

Members’ debate

Members discussed parking displacement and alternative parking, but acknowledged there were limited planning grounds for refusal.

“The rationale for the submission of two separate applications, noting the distinction between planning permission and advertisement consent. • Confirmation of land ownership and lease arrangements, with the Council identified as landowner and the applicant holding a long lease. • Clarification that no parking survey had been undertaken and that the assessment of usage was based on anecdotal evidence.”

“Noted existing parking pressures in the area but acknowledged the presence of alternative parking provision. • Expressed concern that the proposal would displace parking onto surrounding streets, potentially exacerbating existing issues. • Acknowledged, however, that there were limited planning grounds upon which to refuse the application. • Questioned whether alternative approaches had been considered. • Proposed that the application be approved.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members proposed approval and resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

“RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:”

“OS Extract (ref 3988.12 B) received by the Local Planning Authority on 16.03.2026 • Proposed Layout Plan (ref 3988.10) received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.12.2025”

Minutes

Conditions

The permission required the development to begin within three years and to follow the approved plans.

“The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.”

“The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:”

Minutes