Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to disclose any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.

Members may still disclose any interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

11. P1390.17 - 89 MAIN  ROAD, ROMFORD.

Councillor Philippa Crowder, Pecuniary, Councillor Phillippa Crowder, Prejudicial. Councillor Crowder advised that she owned a property in the vicinity of the proposed development.

Councillor Crowder left the room and did not take part in the consideration of the application.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 October 2017 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 October 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The proposal before Members was for a retrospective planning permission for a children's treehouse in a rear garden.

The planning permission was sought for the retention of a children's tree house in a rear garden. The tree house had been partially constructed but was not yet fully complete.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor John Mylod on the grounds of a loss of privacy as it was felt that the tree house overlooked the rear garden and conservatory of the neighbour and concluded that it amounted to bad positioning of the tree house

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

The objector commented on the height of the tree house, that the tree house was in full view of their kitchen and conservatory and the loss of natural daylight. The resident was requesting that the height of the structure be reduced by two to three feet and the opening to the tree house be re-sited from the present spot.

The applicant responded that the tree house was located some distance from the boundary wall and as such would not cause any loss to light. The applicant added that it was his intention to grow further trees to screen the tree house from the neighbouring premises.

With its agreement Councillor John Mylod addressed the Committee.

Councillor Mylod commented that the tree house was quite big and causing  overlooking into the objector’s garden and kitchen. He was of the opinion that the tree house be lowered and relocated 180% in the garden to avoid any overlooking.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification relating to the height and outbuilding regulations.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to defer it was RESOLVED that the application be deferred to enable discussion with applicant about location of slide and potential for relocation away from rear boundary.

The vote for the deferral of the application was carried by 6 votes to 5.

Councillors Crowder, Misir, Smith, Wallace and Westwood voted against the motion to defer.

The application before Members detailed an outline planning application for the demolition of all buildings at Inserco House, 143 New Road an Centurion House to redevelop the site for residential use providing up to 35 units (a mixture of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom apartments and 3-bedroom townhouses) with ancillary car parking, landscaping and access.

With its agreement Councillor Michael Deon Burton addressed the Committee expressing his concern/reservation to the proposal as an outline application with reserved matters.

Councillor Burton commented that the applicant could submit a proposal in the future to increase both the height and reduce parking space on the site.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification relating to the number of parking spaces, height of the building and amenity spaces on the outline application.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to an amended condition requiring a minimum of 37 spaces plus an informative in connection with amenity space provision next to the highway being unlikely to be acceptable.

The proposal before Members sought permission for the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new bungalow with retained car parking provision for the host property.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by both Councillors John Glanville and Steven Kelly. Councillor Glanville was against the application on the basis that the development was far forward of the building line and would create car parking problems. The application had been called in by Councillor Kelly as he was of the opinion that the development was in keeping with the area and the off-setting of the building line fitted in with the aspect of the corner position.  

With its agreement Councillor John Glanville addressed the Committee.

Councillor Glanville commented that the application did not fit in with the street scene as the proposed development was on the building line with other properties in the area. Councillor Glanville was also of the view that the proposal might cause a precedent to other development in the area.

During the debate Members discussed the effect of the proposal on the street scene and the marginal difference the development/application would have on the building line in the area.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried 7 votes to 4, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to conditions and legal agreement.

The vote for the approval to grant planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 4.

Councillors Ford, Hawthorn, Martin and Smith voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

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 refused as set out in the report.

The proposal before Members was for the following changes outlined in relation to the previously approved scheme.

1. The ridge line of the first floor side extension had been raised so it was now the same as the original dwelling.

2. The eaves line of the side extension was higher than previously approved.

3. The rear extension had been increased in width to include a new sun room with a roof lantern alongside.

4. The existing structures adjacent to No.11 would be removed to make way for the extension.

5. The front elevation of the first floor side extension had a face brick and not a render appearance.

6. The size of the first floor window had changed from 1.22m x 0.84m to 1.17m x 0.97m and the window design altered.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Ron Ower for the Committee to discuss the application as it was felt that there were a number of special circumstances for consideration and that there were a number of similar extensions locally.

Due to other commitments Councillor Ron Ower was unable to attend the meeting.

Councillor Ower had circulated comments to Members prior to the meeting for consideration on the matter.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification relating to the differences between the development and what had been previously approved.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

The vote for the refusal to grant planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 1 and 3 abstention.

Councillors Hawthorn voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission. Councillor Ford, Martin and Williamson abstained from voting.

The application before Members sought consent for the change of use of the premises to a beauty salon.

The application site most recently had a retail use (A1) with its main access from the front, off Main Road and service access towards the rear. The premises would offer a range of services including deep cleansing facials and non-surgical skin improvement treatments, in addition to classic/gel manicures and pedicures waxing eyelash extensions and eyebrow shaping/tinting and body/face massages.

The proposal also included the addition of air conditioning units to the rear of the building and alterations to the shopfront.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification relating to the period the premises had been vacant. Members also discussed the overall effect of a further beauty salon in the area and the impact on parking in the area.

The report recommended that planning permission be agreed however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of impact upon vitality and viability of the Gidea Park Major Local Centre.

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.