Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 16 November and 7 December 2017 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 16 November and 7 December 2017 were agreed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

The report before Members detailed an application for the re-development of the site to provide 620 Residential units (use class C3) and 830sqm of commercial floor space (use class A1/A3/D1) in buildings extending to between 4 and 8 storeys in height together with associated car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and infrastructure works.

The application was reported to the Committee as it was for a major development within Romford.

Officers advised that the application had been withdrawn from consideration at the meeting to allow further negotiations to take place with the applicant.

The application before Members was for the retrospective planning permission for a children’s treehouse in the rear garden of the property.

The application was previously considered by the Committee on 16 November 2017, where it was deferred to enable staff to seek to negotiate the following:

· To discuss with the applicant about the location of the slide and potential for relocating it away from the rear boundary.

In response to this, the applicant had provided additional comments, as well as an additional plan showing the vegetation adjacent to the boundary with No.63 Highfield Crescent, which lay to the eastern side of the application site.

Members noted that the application had previously been called-in by Councillor John Mylod on the grounds of a loss of privacy (overlooking the rear garden and conservatory) and bad positioning of the tree house.

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

The objector commented that the treehouse was poorly positioned and that the slide opening would lead to overlooking and a loss of privacy to their amenity space. The objector concluded by commenting that the applicant had refused to meet to discuss an amicable solution to the problem of overlooking.

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

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

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

The application before Members was for retrospective planning permission for an obscure glazed polycarbonate sheeting roof above a raised decking area and alterations to the side decking panels and for a timber framed link-way structure between the main building and an outbuilding.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Frederick Thompson on the grounds that he considered that the plot was over-developed and constituted something more suited to a commercial site rather than a residential area.

With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.

Councillor Thompson commented that fifty percent of the site had been built over and that the applicants had been non-conforming with previous planning permissions.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a vote to approve planning permission which was lost by 1 vote to 10 it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and the visual impact of the proposal which would lead to a loss of openness of the site.

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

Councillor Misir voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

The Committee noted that the proposed development was liable for the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3. The applicable fee was based on 198.38 square metres of new gross internal floor space. The proposal would therefore give rise to the requirement of a £3,967.60 Mayoral CIL payment (subject to indexation).

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 Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following obligations, by 20 April 2018, and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by such date then the application should be refused:

•         A financial contribution of £12,000 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 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.

It was noted that the proposed development was liable for the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3. The applicable fee was based on 874 square metres of new gross internal floor space. The proposal would therefore give rise to the requirement of a £5,440 Mayoral CIL payment (subject to indexation). 

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 Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following obligations by 20 April 2018 and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by such date then the application should be refused

•         A financial contribution of £24,000 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 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.