Agenda and minutes

The report before members detailed an application that had been submitted on behalf of the Council in respect of land within its ownership on the eastern side of Gooshays Drive, north of Petersfield Avenue. The application sought outline planning permission for residential development of up to 242 units on the site. 

Members noted that 19 letters of representation had been received.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant.

With its agreement, Councillors Darvill, O’Flynn and Murray addressed the Committee.

Councillor Darvill, speaking in opposition to the application,  questioned the certainty of the provision of the alternative sports facilities at the Broxhill Centre, and the suitability of such facilities. Councillor Darvill also questioned the type and number of affordable properties planned for the scheme and questioned whether such provision was sufficient. Councillor Darvill asked that the Committee reject or defer the proposal on the grounds of adverse environmental impact to Harold Hill; loss of leisure space; uncertainty over highways infrastructure; uncertainty over how the proceeds from a future sale of the site would be used.

Councillor O’Flynn, speaking in opposition to the application, questioned the manner in which green sites in Harold Hill were being disposed of. Councillor O’Fiynn questioned the adequacy of the size of the affordable housing provision when there are significant numbers of people awaiting social housing. Councillor O’Flynn suggested that the assets of Harold Hill were being sacrificed in order to pay for projects in other wards.

Councillor Murray, speaking in opposition to the application, commented that the area to be developed was very popular with local residents and had a long history as an open green space. Councillor Murray expressed his concerns at the number of residential units proposed in the development as the development was in close proximity to another development on the former Harold Wood Hospital site. Councillor Murray raised concerns over health and safety and traffic management issues and questioned whether the current infrastructure, schools, roads, health sector which are already over stretched could support the development. Councillor Murray asked that the Committee reject the scheme as the majority of residents in the Gooshays ward were against the proposals.

During a lengthy debate members considered the comments made in opposition to the proposed development. Members noted that future proceeds from the sale of the proposed development site would go towards the Harold Hill Ambitions Programme for the benefit of the Harold Hill area. Members discussed the number of new positive development opportunities that had taken place in the Harold Hill area recently.

Members sought and received clarification that the existing users of the land, the Romford Royals Football Club, were in agreement with re-locating to the Broxhill Centre.

Members also considered the possibility of increased traffic congestion, arising from the proposed new development, at the junction of Gooshays Drive/Gubbins Lane and the A12 Colchester Road. Officers advised that funding for traffic improvements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 262.

The application before members was for planning permission fora single storey front extension, single/two storey, side/rear extensions and single/two storey rear extensions.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Galpin on the grounds that the proposal raises  neighbourliness and streetscene issues.

In accordance with the public participation arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector without a response from the applicant.

With its agreement, Councillor Galpin addressed the Committee. Councillor Galpin commented that the proposal was for a large extension and that over shadowing could occur to neighbouring properties. Councillor Galpin also advised that the resident of the neighbouring property suffered from poor health and would find the proposed building works distressing. Councillor Gaplin asked the Committee to refuse the application on grounds of visual harm and the adverse effect to neighbouring properties.

During the debate members discussed the potential impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties by reason of its visual impact and bulk and mass.  

The Committee considered the report which recommended that planning permission for the proposed development be granted but following a motion to refuse the application it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the extension by reason of excessive scale and bulk would harm both the character and appearance of the streetscene and the rear garden environment for neighbouring properties. The vote for the resolution was carried by 7 votes to 4. Councillors Oddy, Brice-Thompson, Osborne, hawthorn, Ower, Breading and Burton voted for the resolution to refuse planning permission. Councillors Tebbutt, Brace, Kelly and Pain voted against the resolution.

The Committee considered the report, noting that a late letter of representation had been received and without debate, RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED that That the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

·        agreement that all future occupiers of the proposed development, save for blue badge holders, are restricted from applying for residents parking permits.

·        payment of the Council’s reasonable legal fees for preparation of the legal agreement.

That staff be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon its completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out below:

1.         The development to which this permission relates must be commenced not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:-

To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)

2.         Before any of the development hereby permitted is commenced, samples of all materials to be used in the external construction of the building(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be constructed with the approved materials.

Reason:-                                                                

To ensure that the appearance of the proposed development will harmonise with the character of the surrounding area and comply with Policy DC61 of the Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

3.         The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans, particulars and specifications.

Reason:-                                                                

The Local Planning Authority consider it essential that the whole of the development is carried out and that no departure whatsoever is made from the details approved, since the development would not necessarily be acceptable if partly carried out or carried out differently in any degree from the details submitted.  Also, in order that the development accords with Development Control Policies Development Plan Document Policy DC61.

4.         Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no window or other opening (other than those shown on the submitted plan,) shall be formed in the flank wall(s) of the building(s) hereby permitted, unless specific permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:-

In order to ensure a satisfactory development that will not result in any loss of privacy or damage to the environment of neighbouring properties which exist or may be proposed in the future, and in order that the development accords with  Development Control Policies Development Plan Document Policy DC61.

5.         No construction works or deliveries into the site shall take place other than between the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  No construction works or deliveries shall take place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 265.

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Deed of Variation under Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary the legal agreement completed on 29 March 2011, and subsequently varied by Deed of Variation dated 23 February 2012 in respect of planning permission P0086.11 by varying the definition of Planning Permission which shall mean either planning permission P0086.11 as originally granted or planning permission P0086.11, as altered by planning permission under reference P0112.12.

Save for the variation set out above and necessary consequential amendments the Section 106 agreement dated 29 March 2011, as previously varied by Deed of Variation dated 23 February 2012 and all recitals, terms, covenants and obligations in the said Section 106 agreement dated 29^th March 2011 will remain unchanged.

That upon the expiry of the statutory consultation period (9 March 2012), subject to no new material representations being received, in which case the application will be referred back to Regulatory Services Committee, Staff be authorised to enter into a Deed of Variation to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out below.

1.               Time limit - The development to which this permission relates must be commenced not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.               Accordance with plans - The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans, particulars and specifications.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority consider it essential that the whole of the development is carried out and that no departure whatsoever is made from the details approved, since the development would not necessarily be acceptable if partly carried out or carried out differently in any degree from the details submitted.  Also, in order that the development accords with the LDF Development Control Policies Development Plan Document Policy DC61.

3.               Car parking - Before the buildings hereby permitted are first occupied, the areas set aside for car parking shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The parking areas shall be retained permanently thereafter for the accommodation of vehicles visiting the site and shall not be used for any other purpose.

            Reason: To ensure that car parking accommodation is made permanently available to the standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority in the interest of highway safety and in order that the development accords with the LDF Development Control Policies Development Plan Document Policy DC33.

4.           Materials – The development hereby approved shall be constructed using the external materials previously submitted and agreed under condition discharge request application Q0145.11 unless otherwise agreed in writing  by the Local Planning Authority.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 266.

The report before members detailed an application for the erection of railings to site frontage, surfacing front driveway and provision of window security.

During the debate members discussed the height and design of the proposed railings and the Police’s recommendation that the works were carried out. Members considered the affect of the development on highway safety, particularly the safety of children. 

Members were informed that the application had a unique set of special circumstances which led to a recommendation by officers to approve the application. Officers clarified that the set of special circumstances were particular to this site.   

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report. The vote for the resolution was carried by 8 votes to 3. Councillors Oddy, Brice-Thompson, Kelly, Pain, Hawthorn, Ower, Breading and Burton voted for the resolution to grant planning permission Councillors Tebbutt, Brace and Osborne voted against the resolution.

The report before members detailed an application for planning permission for the retention of a car wash business with associated timber structure which had been installed on the site without the benefit of planning permission.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor John Mylod on the basis that the car wash was situated on one of the busiest points for traffic in Hornchurch. The site experienced high levels of traffic with cars queuing on the one way system, and to get into the petrol station. Councillor Mylod felt that the car wash only exacerbated the situation.

During the debate members discussed highway safety arising out of vehicular access and egress to and from  the site . Members considered issues relating to parking, street scene and the drainage of dirty water from the car wash business. 

The Committee considered the report which recommended that planning permission be granted but following a motion to refuse the application it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of inadequate parking remaining for use by patrons of the public house, harmful vehicular access and egress conditions and harmful visual impact of the hut situated on the site.

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The report updated the Committee on the position of legal agreements and planning obligations. This related to approval of various types of application for planning permission decided by the Committee that could be subject to prior completion or a planning obligation. This was obtained pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Acts.

The report also updated the position on legal agreements and planning obligations agreed by this Committee during the period 2000-2012.

The Committee NOTED the report and the information contained therein

The report accompanied a schedule of appeals and a schedule of appeal decisions, received between 19 November 2011 and 10 February 2012

The report detailed that 25 new appeals had been received since the last meeting of the Monitoring Committee in December 2011.

The Committee NOTED the report and the results of the appeal decisions received.

The Committee considered and noted the schedules detailing information regarding enforcement notices updated since the meeting held in December 2011.

Schedule A showed notices currently with the Secretary of State for the Environment (the Planning Inspectorate being the executive agency) awaiting appeal determination.

Schedule B showed current notices outstanding, awaiting service, compliance, etc. with up-dated information from staff on particular notices.

The Committee NOTED the information in the report.

The report updated the Committee on the progress and/or outcome of recent prosecutions undertaken on behalf of the Planning Service.

The Committee NOTED the report.

To consider whether the public should now be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present during those items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972; and, if it is decided to exclude the public on those grounds, the Committee to resolve accordingly on the motion of the Chairman.

The Committee decided on the motion of the Chairman that the public should be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the ground that it was likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and it was not in the public interest to publish the information.

Attached to the report was a schedule listing, by Ward, all the complaints received by the Planning Control Service over alleged planning contraventions for the period from 19 November 2011 and 10 February 2012.

The Committee NOTED the report and AGREED the actions being taken.