Agenda and minutes

The proposal before Members was for the demolition of an 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.

This application had been previously considered by the Committee on 17 December 2015 where it had been deferred to enable staff to seek amendments to increase the amount of on-site parking for staff, to introduce a drop off facility on Union Road and to clarify the arrangements for sports facilities for future pupils. The report was now brought back to Members, updated to reflect the outcome of these negotiations with the applicant.

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

The objector advised that he was speaking on behalf of the Romford Civic Society. The objector commented that the drop off point proposed was not sufficient enough and the increase in staff parking was not enough to cope with demand. The objector concluded by re-iterating his previous comment that the proposal was for the demolition of a locally listed building.

In response the applicant’s agent again commented that that the existing building was suitable for conversion. The agent also commented that the Committee’s previous concerns had been addressed in the re-submitted report and that there was a great need of the school places in the borough.

During the debate Members discussed the provision of the drop off zone and slightly increased parking.

The consensus of Members appeared to be that although some additions had been made the scheme still fell some way short of being ideal however, this had to be offset against the greater need for school places within the borough and that a new school was preferable to an expansion of an existing one.

It was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to

A:        No direction to the contrary from the Mayor for London (under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008); and

B:        The Head of Regulatory Services being authorised to negotiate and agree a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• To adopt, implement measures within and keep under review a School Travel Plan for the lifetime of the development.

·         Each year during Spring Term for a period of six years following first occupation of the development, the owner/operator to appoint a transport consultant (to be approved by the Council) to undertake an independent survey to assess the degree to which parents arrive at the site at the start and end of the school day by car and park/stop on Union Road or other nearby adjacent roads and if necessary to recommend actions to prevent parents driving to the site.

·         The owner/occupier to submit, before the end  ...  view the full minutes text for item 402.

The proposal before Members was for conversion and part demolition of the existing dwelling to allow room for the construction of a 3-bedroom detached dwelling.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Linda Van den Hende on grounds that:

·         The proposal would have a serious impact on the streetscene and would cause an unbalanced environment.

·         Both the neighbour in Little Gaynes Lane and that of 142 Corbets Tey Road would be significantly inconvenienced with the overlooking from the new build and loss of amenity.

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

The objector commented that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and would lead to a loss of light that would affect his property.

With its agreement Councillor Linda Van den Hende addressed the Committee.

Councillor Van den Hende commented that the proposal was a balanced case and a judgement call was needed. Councillor Van den Hende also commented that a previous application had been refused on the grounds of density and layout and that the new proposal appeared to pay attention to the amenity of the new property but not to that of the existing neighbours. Councillor Van den Hende concluded that the proposal would lead to a loss of light on the existing neighbours and would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene.

During the debate Members discussed the impact the proposal would have on the streetscene and whether it was an overdevelopment of the site.

Following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was lost by 6 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions the Committee noted that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £5,796 and RESOLVED 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:

·      A financial contribution of £6,000 to be paid prior to commencement of development and to be used towards infrastructure costs.

·      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.

·      To pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

·      Payment of the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to 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 6 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions.

Councillors Misir, Kelly, Wallace, Chapman, Smith and Whitney voted for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 403.

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 vote for the resolution was carried by 10 votes to 1.

Councillor Whitney voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £1,968 and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 7 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions.

Councillors Misir, Kelly, Chapman, Wallace, Smith, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Nunn and Whitney voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Hawthorn and Ower abstained from voting.

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 application before Members was for the re-development of a former garage court which included an area of open space to provide ten new dwelling houses and two flats.

During a brief debate Members discussed the current/future access arrangements for existing residents particularly during the construction period.

The Committee noted that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £25,432 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

·         A financial contribution of £72,000 to be paid prior to the commencement of the development, to be used for educational purposes in accordance with the Policy DC72 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

·         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 provision on site of a minimum of 50% of the units as affordable housing with the two social rented units to remain as affordable in perpetuity.

·         The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the planning obligation prior to its completion irrespective of whether the obligation was completed.

·         The payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the obligation.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant planning permission upon the completion of the unilateral undertaking subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include the following amendments to the following conditions:

Condition 12 (Construction Methodology). Add a new paragraph (i) requiring details of vehicular access for existing residents during the construction period.

Condition 17 (Accessibility).Delegate detailed working to Head of Regulatory Services to reflect new legislation on disabled access – one house to be wheelchair adaptable, all other units (including ground floor flat), except first floor flat, to meet building regulations.

Condition 22 (Car Parking Area).Amend condition to include provision of parking spaces for disabled people.

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 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 Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

•      Provision of a training and recruitment scheme for local people to be employed during the construction period and operation of the facility

•      The Developer/Owner pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement is completed.

•      The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to 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.