Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Hawthorn declared a personal, but not prejudicial interest, as a friend of Upminster Windmill in application P0421.15. Councillor Hawthorn confirmed that she brought an open mind to the proposal.

Councillor Whitney declared a personal, but not prejudicial interest, in application P1454.15 as he knew of a family member that lived close to the application site. Councillor Whitney confirmed that he brought an open mind to the proposal.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 December 2015 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

Agreed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2015 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Deferred.

The proposal before Members was for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new primary school for 630 pupils aged 4-11. The existing building was the original Nurses and Doctors accommodation for the former Oldchurch Hospital and was identified as a Locally Listed Building and was therefore a heritage asset.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s representative.

The objector advised that he was speaking on behalf of the Romford Civic Society. The objector queried as to why the proposal did not consider adapting or renovating the existing building. The objector also commented that other heritage assets had been converted and that felt the existing building should be retained to provide a tangible link to the social history of the site.

In response the applicant’s representative commented that the proposed school was to be built in a good location that would prove popular with local residents. The representative also commented that Government regulations meant that new schools had to be built with specific guidelines regarding classroom sizes and this meant that converting the existing building would not be possible, as had been confirmed by the architects, as it was not large enough to meet these requirements. The representative concluded by advising that the proposal had been presented to the Mayor of London who had been in favour of the proposed scheme.

During the debate Members discussed why there was a conservation order on the property if it was going to eventually be demolished.

Members also discussed the lack of parking provision for staff members and the lack of a drop off facility for parents dropping off and collecting children from the school. The report showed that the applicants were happy with the parking provision but the Council’s Highways officers had registered their concerns.

The report highlighted that the applicants were looking for a vehicle free zone around the school for parents and that alternative means of transport and pedestrian only access would be encouraged, however Members agreed that no plan to control parent’s parking would be workable or enforceable.

The report also showed that the cycle storage facility proposed was below that recommended for such schemes and that Union Road was only 5 metres wide and there was no provision of a drop off and pick up facility and therefore the proposal failed to meet the requirements of LDF Policy DC33.

Members recognised the wider need for school places in the borough and felt that this needed to be balanced against the lack of provision that was contained within the report.

Members also raised concerns as to the level of open space and exercise facility provision in the report and asked that this provision be clarified with the applicants.

Member’s views were split on the design of the proposed building but the consensus was that it was the right building but perhaps in the wrong location and if the proposal was to go  ...  view the full minutes text for item 382.

Approved.

The proposal before Members was for the construction of a miniature railway within Lodge Farm Park, Gidea Park. The railway would be run by a railway club and operated for both private and public use.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector followed by a response by the applicant.

The objector advised that he was speaking on behalf of residents of Kingston Road who were concerned about the loss of privacy that would be afforded to their properties if the proposal was allowed to go ahead. The objector also commented that residents had concerns regarding the erection of the storage facility for the railway locomotive and over the lack of parking provision for the extra visitors to the park.

In response the applicant commented that the resident’s concerns were perhaps misjudged. The applicant had 20 years’ experience operating a similar railway in Chingford, Waltham Forest which had been described as “A jewel of the park”. The applicant also commented that the proposal had the support of the Friends of the park and park staff.

During a brief debate Members discussed the possible lack of parking provision and the benefits the proposal would bring to the park for visitors.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be grated subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

Approved.

The proposal before Members was for the erection of one two-storey detached house to the side of the existing bungalow at number seven Highview Gardens.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Linda Van den Hende on the grounds of overdevelopment, impact on the amenity of neighbours and proximity of the Grade II listed Upminster Windmill.

With its agreement Councillor Van den Hende addressed the Committee.

Councillor Van den Hende commented that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and would be very close to the neighbouring property at number nine. Councillor Van den Hende also commented that the proposed dwelling would upset the balance of the streetscene and would have an effect on the neighbours opposite. Councillor Van den Hende concluded by commenting that the proposed dwelling would be quite close to Upminster Windmill, would be intrusive and provide a lack of amenity to its future occupiers.

During a brief debate Members discussed the current unkempt state of the plot and the possible benefits the proposal could bring to the site.

Members also discussed the streetscene and the effect the proposal would have on it and whether a house was suitable on the site which had originally had a bungalow sited on it.

Following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was lost by 2 votes to 9, it was noted that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £2,640 and it was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

•           A financial contribution of £6,000 to be used for educational purposes.

•           All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

•           The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement was completed.

•           Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 2.

Councillors Donald and Hawthorn voted against the resolution to grant 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.

Refused.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons 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 Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £3,422.52 and without debate RESOLVED that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.