Agenda and minutes

The application before Members proposed the construction of three 2-bedroom houses with parking, amenity and access road, and; amending garden layouts to existing dwellings. 

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

The objector commented that there were several considerations that were not adequately dealt with within the report. Firstly there was little consideration given to road safety and the limited access that the access road proposed gave. The objector also commented that visibility splay proposed would be to the detriment of pedestrian safety. The objector concluded by commenting that the proposed opening up of the rear of the existing property would affect existing resident’s privacy and lead to an increased vulnerability to crime.

In response the applicant commented that he had been working with officers for the last four to five months to fine tune the application so that met all planning criteria. The applicant also commented that the proposal provided ample parking provision. The applicant concluded by commenting that the proposal blended in with existing properties in the area and would provide affordable housing.

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £5,080 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant, by 4 August 2018, entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

·       A contribution of £18,000 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. 

In the event that the legal agreement was not completed by 4 August 2018 the application should be refused.

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.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 2 with 1 abstention.

Councillors White and Nunn voted against the resolution.

Councillor Martin abstained from voting.

The report before Members considered a cross boundary hybrid application (part outline, part detailed) for a total of 2,900 dwellings within Havering and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham on a site of total area of 31.54 ha. Within Havering the application proposed the erection of 733 dwellings comprising of 137 houses and 596 apartments on land known as Beam Park to the east and west of Marsh Way, south of the A1306. Phase 1 of the development would deliver 536 dwellings, a new local centre based around a new railway station, up to 5,272 sq.m of other support uses including commercial floorspace and a 1,500 sqm health centre and community facilities. Phase 1 would also provide the site for a new 3 form of entry primary school with communal sports facilities plus extensive areas of open space and landscaping including a new park either side of the River Beam and a linear parkway along New Road. The development would provide 50% affordable housing.

The application was deferred from the 15 March 2018 meeting for staff to clarify the position in relation to school provision, height, affordable housing, healthcare provision and the level of parking. Revisions had been made to the application in response which were addressed in the report. 

With its agreement Councillors David Durant and Michael Deon Burton addressed the Committee.

Councillor Durant commented that the proposal was a contradiction to the Local Plan and that no consideration had been given to the possibility of the Rainham to Belvedere river crossing that may be introduced in the future. Councillor Durant also commented that the Council needed to approach the  Mayor for London’s office to determine which of the river crossing options were to be taken forward as there would be increased traffic and greater air pollution to future residents if the Rainham to Belvedere option was chosen. Councillor Durant concluded by commenting that although the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had approved their part of the scheme Havering’s resident’s views and those of the Rainham, Wennington and South Hornchurch Work Party had been ignored.

Councillor Burton commented that as things stood there was currently no school provider in place and the station did not exist. Councillor Burton also commented that Councillors sitting on the Rainham, Wennington and South Hornchurch Working Party had been promised a garden suburb during consultations with the developers however the proposed development was more of a flatted high density development. Councillor Burton concluded that the proposed blocks were taller than had been promised and the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and was not fit for purpose as there was insufficient parking provision.

During the debate Members discussed the suitability of the proposal and there were several concerns that views of the Committee, residents and the Rainham, Wennington and South Hornchurch Working Party had not been taken into consideration and the proposal still was not suitable in terms of height and impact on character of the area.

The report recommended that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 394.

The application before Members sought retrospective planning permission for two conservatories, a covered way to the north elevation of the main property, a swimming pool and an outbuilding (pump room) with extended areas of hardstanding and vehicular parking and a retaining wall. The proposals, by virtue of their location and use are subject to the change of use of land to residential curtilage.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor John Crowder on the grounds that it had been claimed that the property had been in its current state for more than 10 years and was considered by Councillor Crowder to be a vast improvement to the area.

With its agreement Councillor John Crowder addressed the Committee.

Councillor Crowder commented that the property in its current condition was not detrimental to the Green Belt. Councillor Crowder concluded by commenting that the property was in a tidy condition in comparison to neighbouring properties which included a scrapyard and several other businesses.

During the debate Members discussed the merits of the application and the surrounding properties.

Members also received guidance regarding Green Belt policy and of the circumstances that permitted development.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be approved on the basis that the development would not give rise to loss of openness and that the development would improve the character of the area.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions.

Councillors Hawthorn and Nunn voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Martin and Williamson abstained from voting.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

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:

•         To restrict future occupiers from obtaining parking permits.

That, if by 5 August 2018 the legal agreement had not been completed, the Assistant Director of Development had delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

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.

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, by 4 October 2018, entering into a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following:

·       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 Planning Obligation to the date of receipt by the Council. 

·       The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Planning Obligation 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. 

·       Development Phasing.

·       Provision of alternative venues for existing users of the site (if not resolved).

·       Travel Plan.

·       A financial contribution of £12,000 to be used for road infrastructure improvements.

·       A financial contribution of £15,000 to be used for local cycling improvements study and works.

In the event that the Planning Obligation was not completed by 4 October 2018 the application should be refused.

That the Assistant Director of Development be authorised to secure a Planning Obligation for the above and upon completion of that obligation, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, on the understanding that the conditions may be updated as appropriate, in case the requirements were discharged satisfactorily before a decision was formally issued. 

That planning permission be granted subject to referral to the Mayor of London.