Agenda and minutes

This report before Members detailed an application for the redevelopment of part of the open space to the rear of four blocks of three-storey flats on the west side of White Hart Lane. The site, which was Council owned, currently comprised an area of informal amenity space used by the occupants of the flats.  The space was gated and fenced off so that it was not publically accessible. The proposal was to erect sixteen new affordable dwellings comprising six flats and ten houses. The site lay within a predominantly residential area where the redevelopment of the land for housing would be acceptable in principle.

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

The objector commented that residents already enjoyed a low level quality of life in the area and that the proposal would have an impact on the amenity of existing residents. The objector also commented that the proposal would lead to a lack of light in the area and also have a detrimental impact on parking provision in the vicinity of the flats. The objector concluded by commenting that the existing flats had not benefitted from any regeneration or refurbishment.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that officers had put together a comprehensive report following a long design process. The agent also commented that the proposal met housing needs in the area and provided high quality homes in a mix of designs. The agent concluded by commenting that regeneration works to the existing flats formed part of 2017/18 Housing Programme.

During the debate Members discussed the impact the proposal would have on the existing land and on the amenity of existing residents.

Members also sought and received clarification on the distances between the proposed development and existing properties.

Members noted that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £27,760 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £96,000 to be used for educational purposes in accordance with the policies DC29 and DC72 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning 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 obligation (unilateral undertaking) to the date of receipt by the Council.

• The provision on site of a minimum of 50% of the units as affordable housing to remain as affordable rented units in perpetuity.

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

• Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the unilateral  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

The report before Members detailed an application which sought permission for an extension to the main school building, to be located on the western side of the site to provide nursery provision in line with a growing demand for early years’ places. The school was Council owned and an objection had been received.

Members noted that a petition had been received from the residents of Granger Way.

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

The objector commented that access to the school was already limited and that at drop off and pick up times the area was already at saturation point. The objector also commented that the current school already overlooked several neighbouring properties and that the proposal would only exacerbate the problem. The objector concluded by commenting that he had received a letter of support from his local MP.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that there was a need for extra school places in the Romford area and that these had to be balanced against the extra traffic that would be created. The Council’s Highways service had deemed that the extra vehicular movements would be manageable.

During a brief debate Members sought and clarified the distance between the proposed extension and the the neighbouring properties.

Members also discussed the current parking arrangements in the area including the use of the school car park on Sundays by the local church.

It was RESOLVED to delegate to the Director of Neighbourhoods to grant planning permission subject to the expiry of the neighbour consultation period and subject to this not generating any further representations which raised new material considerations not covered within the committee report. Should any such further representations raising new material considerations be received then the application to go back to the Committee for determination. Also the attachment of an additional planning condition requiring that the car park fence have additional screening attached to mitigate the effect of headlights shining into residential premises in Granger way.

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 planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

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 planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.