Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2018 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2018 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The report before Members concerned an application for the construction of an additional floor to make provision for five self-contained residential units with associated bin stores and cycle storage.

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

The objector commented that there was currently large rubbish bins at the rear of the property which encouraged people to dump large items of furniture in the area. Larger bins for more residents would be restrictive to the pavement area. The objector also commented that the area was in a controlled parking zone and parking provision was limited in the area. The objector concluded that residents wanted a quiet life and did not want to live through building works.

With its agreement Councillor Joshua Chapman addressed the Committee.

Councillor Chapman commented that he was representing the residents of Gibson Court. Councillor Chapman also commented that the proposal would have a significant impact on existing residents’ day to day amenity. Councillor Chapman also commented that he was saddened that the proposal was recommended for approval following two previous refusals. Councillor Chapman also commented that the proposal was equivalent to the final piece of a jigsaw being slotted in and that due to a poorly located refuse arrangement the impact on existing residents’ amenity would be excessive. Councillor Chapman concluded by commenting that existing and future residents’ amenity needed to be protected.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification on issues relating to parking provision and amenity space.

The Committee considered the report, noting that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £7.160 and 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  and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by 19 July 2018 the item should be refused:

•           A financial contribution of £30,000 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.

•           Save for the holder of blue badges that the future occupiers of the proposal would be prohibited from purchasing residents or business parking permits for their own vehicles for any existing, revised or new permit controlled parking scheme.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 364.

The report before Members sought permanent retention of the jetty, and associated infrastructure, together with a change of use of it to allow continued use in association with the Landfill and use in association with the Rainham Lagoons restoration project and as a marine logistics hub.

The application was previously considered by the Committee on 11 January 2018 where Members resolved to defer the application for further information to be requested from the applicant. The information was now included in the report.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor David Durant for a full explanation of its implications in respect of future plans for this area and to ensure the matter had been referred to and considered by the relevant 'regeneration' Council departments.

With its agreement Councillor David Durant addressed the Committee.

Councillor Durant commented that the application was another attempt to extend the landfill operations. Councillor Durant also commented that the proposal would impact on public access to the site when the public wanted to use the park for leisure facilities. Councillor Durant also commented that the proposal was a hybrid application and that the applicant still wanted to import waste and rubble by river. Councillor Durant concluded by commenting that the application threatened an extension of Rainham landfill by the back door, the future use of the jetty for leisure purposes and the future of the conservation park.

During the debate Members sought clarification on the plan to convert the premises for leisure purposes following completion of the landfill. Members also discussed the possible increase in vehicle movements in Coldharbour Lane and the removal of planning conditions on the jetty.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report subject to the re-wording of condition 2 to require operations to cease if a satisfactory scheme for future operation and relationship with the proposed conservation area could not be agreed.

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 report before Members detailed an application for the construction of a detached residential dwelling and carport, together with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Committee noted that the application had been called in by Councillor John Crowder, who requested that the application be considered by the Committee Councillor Crowder stated that it would be in keeping with the local area, did not overlook or disturb neighbouring properties, had ample amenity space and provided accommodation for the applicant to provide and look after his mother.

Unfortunately due to other commitments Councillor Crowder was unable to attend the meeting, however officer read out an email they had received from Councillor Crowder that supported the application.

The Committee considered the report and RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as per officer recommendation.

A number of planning applications had been approved with associated legal agreements completed under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring contributions to be made to the Council for infrastructure impacts associated with the development. The majority of contributions were used and spent by the Council on specific projects managed and implemented by the Council. However, some contributions needed to be transferred to the relevant public body responsible for providing the infrastructure. The report sought authority to enter into legal agreements with the relevant public bodies to transfer sums received and to ensure that sums were spent in accordance with the terms of the original S106  legal agreements.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that authority be given for the Director of Legal and Governance to enter into relevant legal agreements with the relevant public body in relation to the transfer of contributions received and what they can be spent on, in relation to the applications listed in the report.