Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 August 2017 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The report before Members concerned an outline planning application for the demolition of an existing care home and the erection of five new dwellings and an access road.

With its agreement Councillor Roger Ramsey addressed the Committee.

Councillor Ramsey commented that he was speaking on behalf of concerned residents. Councillor Ramsey also commented that the proposal had been increased in size from the four dwellings agreed by the planning inspectorate to five dwellings that had also increased in height by adding an extra half storey. The new proposal increased the density on the site by 25% and was contrary to the guidance set out in the Emerson Park Policy Area Supplementary Policy Document. Councillor Ramsey concluded by commenting that the proposal was a harmful overdevelopment of the area and that there were further issues relating to access, egress, fire safety and refuse arrangements that needed to be considered in more detail.

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 had concerns regarding the increased density of the site and possible overlooking issues. The objector also commented that the planning inspectorate had been very specific in its guidance when allowing the applicant’s appeal that the proposed dwellings should only be two storeys in height. The objector concluded by commenting that the proposal would lead to increased traffic movements and noise pollution.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the proposal would have no detrimental impact or be harmful to the Emerson Park area or lead to overlooking of neighbouring properties. The agent concluded by commenting that the proposal was a well-designed and suitable development that would provide quality residential accommodation in the area.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification regarding access/egress arrangements, visibility splays and site dimensions.

The report recommended that planning permission be approved however, following a motion to refuse the approval of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

·       The development, by reasons of the plot layout and the extent of built form introduced into the existing open garden layout, would give rise to a development that was out of keeping with/harmful to the spacious character of the Emerson Park Policy Area.

·       Lack of infrastructure contribution towards education provision.

The application before Members sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and erection of two replacement front and rear blocks comprising a total of thirty-five residential units. The accommodation would include fifteen one-bedroom flats, seventeen two-bedroom flats, and three three-bedroom flats. As part of the proposal a ground floor commercial unit would also be included on the Victoria Road frontage with a flexible use as A1 retail/ A2 financial and professional services/ A3 restaurant and cafes/ B1 office/ D1 non-residential/ D2 assembly and leisure.

The proposed development would be arranged with a five-storey block occupying the site frontage facing onto Victoria Road and then a six-storey block positioned towards the rear of the site adjacent to the railway line. The topmost floor of both of the blocks would be set back creating a roof terrace area. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the rearmost block would be via an access road through the easternmost part of the ground floor of the five-storey building. The area between the two buildings would provide a communal amenity area.

The Committee noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Frederick Thompson on the grounds that he believed the proposal would reduce the housing shortage and would not be too tall for its location.

With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.

Councillor Thompson commented that the proposal would not be too tall and that the top storey had been well designed to limit the visual appearance of the building. Councillor Thompson concluded by commenting that the proposal would help to reduce the housing shortage in the area, would enhance the environment and asked that members looked favourably at the proposal.

During the debate Members discussed the height and bulk of the proposed building and its merits as a town centre development.

Members also sought and received clarification regarding Mayoral CIL contributions, S106 agreements including education contributions and affordable housing provision.

The report recommended refusal of granting of planning permission however, following a motion to defer consideration of the report it was RESOLVED to defer consideration of the report to allow officers to have further discussions with the applicant to resolve Section 106 issues (education and affordable housing).

The vote for the resolution to defer consideration of the report was carried by 6 votes to 3 with 1 abstention.

Councillors Donald, J.Crowder, P.Crowder, Wallace, Westwood and White voted for the resolution.

Councillors Hawthorn, Whitney and Martin voted against the resolution.

Councillor Williamson abstained from voting.

The Committee noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Robert Benham on the grounds that the proposal raised concerns in regards to highway/pedestrian safety and encouraging the loss of green space. Reference was also made to the crossover at number 519 Rush Green Road with regards to this previous planning consent being granted in error.

In Councillor Benham’s absence an email supporting the call-in was read out by officers.

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 before Members considered an application for the provision of eight new dwellings within the Green Belt and the Havering Ridge Special Character Area.  The proposal concerned the demolition of existing former agricultural barns and the conversion of some older farmyard buildings. The site lay within the curtilage of the Grade II listed Upper Bedfords Farmhouse. The development would result in an overall reduction in the volume of buildings on site and improve the overall appearance of the area. It would also result in a long term use being established for two of the curtilage listed outbuildings. The overall impact on the Green Belt would be materially reduced which together with the heritage benefits was considered to amount to the very special circumstances that would outweigh any harm.

During the debate Members discussed the bespoke nature of the proposal, developing on the Green Belt and sought and received clarification on very special circumstances relating to the Green Belt.

That the Committee noted that the development proposed was liable for the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3 and that the applicable fee would be £23,520.

It was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following obligations, by 24 December 2017, and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by such date the item should be returned to the Committee for reconsideration:

• A financial contribution of £48,000 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 Technical Appendices.

• All contribution sums shall 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.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

Subject to the Secretary of State not issuing a direction in respect of the application, that the Assistant Director of Development be authorised to enter into a planning obligation to secure the above and upon completion of that obligation, 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 1.

Councillor Whitney voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED to grant listed building consent subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant listed building consent was carried by 9 votes to 1.

Councillor Whitney voted against the resolution

The Committee considered the report, noting that the proposed development qualified for Mayoral CIL contribution of £14,940, 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 12 May 2017, in respect of planning permission P1373.16 by varying the definition of Planning Permission which shall mean either planning permission P1373.16 as originally granted or planning permission P0863.17 and any other changes as may be required from this, to secure the following:

•         A financial contribution of £48,750 to be paid prior to the opening of the store to be used for the following:

          i) highway works in respect of pavement improvements to High Street.

•         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 Assistant Director of Development 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.