Agenda, decisions and minutes

Approved

The application before Members sought planning permission for a front seating area and permanent fixed canopy structure to serve an existing restaurant use in the ground floor unit.

Since the application had been submitted a fixed canopy structure had been erected to the front of the premises and planter boxes had been installed, albeit not in accordance with the plans that were originally submitted with the application. As a result a revised set of plans had been submitted for the unauthorised structure and seating area. Consequently the applicant was now seeking planning permission retrospectively for the canopy structure which had been erected without planning permission.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Joshua Chapman on the grounds that a seating area at the front of the restaurant would greatly enhance the street scene – Councillor Chapman had commented that only cars and rubbish bags were seen scattered along the newly refurbished Victoria Road – the area needed aesthetically pleasing businesses, that utilised their assets to grow, providing more growth to the local economy. The vision for Romford town saw local businesses thriving (especially in Victoria Road, the business sector). Councillor Chapman wished for Councillors to play a leading role, at the Committee meeting, in deciding how that vision was shaped.

With its agreement Councillor Joshua Chapman addressed the Committee.

Councillor Chapman commented that the Victoria Road/Battis area had recently undergone a £1.8million transformation that had sought to deal with previous issues of littering and illegal parking in the area. Councillor Chapman also commented that the town centre area needed thriving businesses as it was good for the local economy and wished for the Committee to discuss the merits of the submitted application.

During the debate Members discussed the ownership of the land and the advantages/disadvantages of the proposed seating area and its effect on the local amenity.

Members noted that Environmental health had proposed a condition regarding the hours of use in that the seating area was not to be used after 21.00 hours.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however, following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried by 6 votes to 3 with 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the inclusion of a condition restricting use of the outdoor area to the hours of 12 noon to 21.00 hours on any day.

The vote for the resolution to approve the granting of planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 2.

Councillors Misr, J Crowder, P Crowder, Wallace, Donald, Nunn, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to approve the granting of planning permission.

Councillors Kelly and Hawthorn voted against the resolution to approve the granting of planning permission.

Approved

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

Approved

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

Approved

The application before Members was for the conversion and extension of a vacant nightclub to an aparthotel (C1 use), including extension of the existing mezzanine floor, the erection of a new second floor and a roof extension to create a total of fifty four bedrooms.

The Committee had deferred consideration of the application at its meeting on 30 July 2015 to allow staff to invite the applicant to:

a)    Revise the scheme to reduce the bulk and impact of the extensions, their effect on the setting and appearance of the building thereby its contribution to the town centre, including its prominence as a heritage asset.

b)    To seek more information on the nature of the proposed “aparthotel” use.

In response to the deferment the applicant had revised the proposals to reduce the bulk of the extensions and to provide internal refuse storage space. The additional storey was no longer proposed and the rooms would now be spread across four floors - ground floor, extended mezzanine, first floor and roof conversion. The roof would be extended on the northern side to provide the additional rooms as previously proposed, but this would not be readily visible from the highway and would not materially affect the overall character and appearance of the building. The number of rooms would be reduced from 54 to 42 and the overall floorspace reduced by 486 square metres.

The deferral had also been to enable staff to seek more information on the nature of the proposed 'apart-hotel' use. Apart-hotel was not currently defined in planning legislation but an earlier circular placed it in C1 use class (hotels) which also included boarding and guest houses, but excluded hostels. The London Plan defined apart-hotels as 'self-contained hotel accommodation for short-term occupancy at a nightly rate' It would normally include concierge and room service, and there would also be formal procedures for checking in and out. The London Plan also suggested that the length of stay may have needed to be limited by condition. In this case conditions were recommended to ensure that the length of stay was limited to ninety days and that details of occupation were recorded. These conditions were based on some used in appeal decisions.

Members noted that the application had previously been called in by Councillor Frederick Thompson due to the impact of the increased building height on the design of the building and its historic interest. There was also concern that the proposals were deficient in terms of the collection of waste and laundry facilities. Following revisions to the application that had addressed his original concerns Councillor Thompson had not made any further objections to the application.

During a brief debate Members discussed the possible enforcement of the condition that restricted use to no more than a ninety continuous day period.

Officers advised that the Council’s enforcement officers would need grounds to investigate before a planning contravention could be issued for non-compliance with the condition.

Members also discussed the possible benefits to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 326.

The Committee considered a report that updated Members 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 2000-2015.

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 30 May 2015 and 31 July 2015.

The report detailed that 29 new appeals had been received since the last meeting of the Monitoring Committee in June 2015.

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 June 2015.

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.

Following the completion of normal business, the committee decided to exclude the public for the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that it was 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. It was decided to exclude the public on those grounds, the Committee RESOLVED accordingly on the motion of the Chairman.

The report before the Committee compiled a schedule listing, by Ward, all the complaints received by the Planning Control Service over alleged planning contraventions for the period from 30 May 2015 and 14 August 2015.

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

With the Chairman’s agreement Members raised an item of urgent business to be considered at the meeting.

Following a brief discussion Members indicated that they wished to receive more concise versions of the monitoring reports in the future.

It was agreed that the matter would be discussed at the forthcoming Member’s training session to be held on 15 September 2015.