Decisions

The Committee considered the report, noting that the application had been called-in by Councillor Robert Benham on the grounds that the proposal would not be in keeping with the local area, noise and nuisance issues, sanitation issues and lack of existing car parking, and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The vote for the resolution was carried by 7 votes to 4.

 

Councillors Misir, Kelly, Hawthorn, Ower, Nunn, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

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

 

The application before Members sought planning permission for the change of use of the building to a mixed residential and childcare use for up to 12 children (aged 2 to 5 years).

 

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Jody Ganly on the grounds that she was not satisfied with the proposed parking and drop off arrangements, as to who would enforce what the applicant had proposed. Councillor Ganly had also commented that residents in Mendip Road already suffered congestion from St. Marys Catholic School and speeding traffic to cut out the traffic lights at the junction of Hornchurch Road/ Park Lane. Councillor Ganly believed that Mendip Road would bear the brunt of the increased vehicular movement and noise and felt this would impact on residential amenity.

 

With its agreement Councillor Jody Ganly addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Ganly commented that the proposal would lead to parking problems in the area which was already suffering from issues of increased traffic and displaced parking. Councillor Ganly also commented that the problems would be exacerbated when the controlled parking zone in Park Lane was extended. Councillor Ganly concluded by commenting that nearby resident’s amenity would suffer detrimentally.

 

During a brief debate Members discussed the suitability of the proposed mixed use scheme and traffic/parking issues that would impact on the area.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 6 votes to 5 it was RESOLVED that the granting of planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

 

1.         The proposed change of use, by reason of the increased level of activity within the building and outdoors areas, together with the activity arising from parents and children entering and leaving the site, would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to the detriment of residential amenity, contrary to Policy DC61 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.

 

2.         Insufficient drop off facility resulting in parking and traffic problems in surrounding roads.

 

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 6 votes to 5.

 

Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, Nunn, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

 

Councillors Misir, Best, Kelly, Westwood and White voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

The Committee considered the report noting that Councillor Robert Benham had called-in the application as he had expressed concerns regarding the property would not be in keeping with the local area, noise and nuisance issues, sanitation issues, lack of existing car parking and the dwelling could be sold as a single dwelling in the future, and without debate 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 carried by 6 votes to 5.

 

Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, Nunn, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

Councillors Misir, Best, Kelly, Westwood and White voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

 

The Committee considered the report noting that Councillor Robert Benham had called-in the application on the grounds that he had concerns regarding the following aspects of the development not in keeping with the surrounding area, noise and nuisance issues, sanitation issues, lack of existing car parking and the property being indirectly converted into a future HMO, and without debate 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 carried by 10 votes to 1.

 

Councillor White 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 granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The proposal before Members sought consent for a change of use of 67 from retail use (A1) to a restaurant (A3). It is proposed to merge numbers 65 and 67 to form one larger planning unit.

 

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor John Glanville, for reasons related to customer parking and potential for overspill onto secondary roads.

 

Councillor Roger Ramsey had also requested that the application be determined by the Committee on the basis of potential parking issues.

 

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

 

The objector commented that merging the two units would harm the character and appearance of the parade. The objector also commented that the area would not be able to cope with additional parking and that there would be an increase in noise nuisance.

 

In response the applicant commented that the proposal sought to provide a seating area to an existing commercial activity in line with Council policies. The applicant also commented that the proposal would be controlled by conditions and that the flue would be upgraded to disperse of any odours in a controlled manner.

 

With its agreement Councillors John Glanville and Roger Ramsey addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Glanville commented that the surrounding roads would not be able to cope with additional parking that the proposal would attract to the area. Councillor Glanville also commented that he had been in receipt of complaints from residents regarding odours emanating from the premises.

 

Councillor Ramsey commented that a similar premises in the area that had been granted planning permission had since suffered with displaced parking issues and that the parade of shops was a small parade and not a shopping centre as had been referred to in the report.

 

During the debate Members sought and received clarification of the number of additional seats that the proposal would bring to the premises discussed the use of the existing car park situated adjacent to the proposal site.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 7 votes to 4 it was RESOLVED that planning be refused due to the following reasons:

 

1.         Inadequate parking provision particularly given parking demand from existing commercial units resulting in overspill parking in surrounding streets resulting in inconvenience for nearby residents and parking safety concerns.

 

2.         Noise and disturbance to nearby residents through customers congregating outside and comings and goings.

 

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 3.

 

Councillors Kelly, White, Hawthorn, Ower, Nunn, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

 

Councillors Best, Misir and Westwood voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

 

 

 

Members considered the report, noting that the application had been called-in by Councillor Robert Benham on the grounds that given the history of the application, in so much that the previous application for the development was refused under delegated powers without presentation to the Committee; and to allow a full discussion of potential impacts, and without debate RESOLVED to refuse the granting of planning permission as per the reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED to refuse the granting of planning permission for the reasons 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 Committee considered the report, noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £17,480, 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 6 October 2017 and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by such date the item shall be returned to the Committee for reconsideration:

 

•           A financial contribution of £54,000 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 Director of Neighbourhoods 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 proposal before Members sought consent for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of two new buildings containing seven residential units.

 

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

 

The objector commented that proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and would leading to an overspill of parking in the area. The objector also commented that the proposal would lead to noise nuisance. The objector concluded by commenting that the proposal would not sit well in the streetscene and could set a precedent in flatted development in the area.

 

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the petition that had been signed by local residents had been slightly misled by the description of the proposal on the petition heading. The agent also commented that the number of flats proposed would not lead to a significant increase in traffic visiting the site. The agent concluded that the proposal had been re-designed following a previous refusal and that the applicant had worked closely with officers to produce a more suitable proposal

 

With its agreement Councillor Jody Ganly addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Ganly commented that existing properties in the area were very spacious and enjoyed good levels of amenity. Councillor Ganly also commented that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site.  Councillor Ganly concluded by commenting that emergency access to the site would be below the norm and that existing properties would suffer from overlooking and a loss of amenity.

 

During the debate Members sought and clarified the height of the proposal and how it would sit within the existing streetscene.

 

Members also discussed the fenestration arrangements of the proposed building and how these would impact on neighbouring properties.

 

Members also discussed the merits of the design, how it would integrate with existing properties and also how it differed from the previously refused proposal.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 6 votes to 5 it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposal, by reason of the number of units and the proposed design and layout, including an excessive amount of hard standing, would represent an overdevelopment of the site and give rise to a cramped urban form, detrimental to local character and amenity and contrary to Policies DC2 and DC61 of the LDF Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.    In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the demand for school places arising from the development, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC29 and DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan.

 

Members also wished to place on record the greater emphasis on excessive density.

 

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 6 votes to 5.

 

Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, Nunn, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

 

Councillors Misir, Best, Kelly, Westwood and White voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of 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 noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £1,126 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 6 October 2017 and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by such date the item shall be returned to the Committee for reconsideration:

 

•           A financial contribution of £54,000 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.

 

•           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 of new permit controlled parking scheme

 

•           Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

 

That the Director of Neighbourhoods 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 report before Members considered an application for the conversion of the former Newstead House Residential Care Home into twenty-eight residential units. The proposal would also involve extensions to increase the height to the north elevation of the existing building. 

 

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 the proposal did not allow for sufficient parking for residents and visitors. The objector also commented about the noise nuisance during the construction and the effect on the amenity of existing neighbouring properties. The objector concluded that the proposal would lead to overlooking of existing properties and would also have an impact on the existing utility services.

 

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the building had been vacant since 2014 and that the proposal offered much needed residential accommodation in the area. The agent also commented that the number of units proposed was lower than the number of existing units and therefore parking provision had increased. The agent concluded by commenting that the construction phase would be conditioned to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties.

 

With its agreement Councillor Patricia Rumble addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Rumble commented that there would be insufficient parking for the proposed number of units and that light and noise emissions would affect the amenity of existing neighbouring properties. Councillor Rumble also commented that the proposed units would have balconies that would lead to overlooking and a loss of amenity to existing residents.

 

During the debate Members discussed the size of the development and how it would sit within the existing streetscene.

 

Members also discussed the lack of provision of affordable housing contained within the scheme and clarified what potential measures there were to allow the applicant to reconsider the affordable housing provision.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 9 votes to 2. It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

 

1.         Overdevelopment of the site of excessive density and inadequate amenity space providing poor quality accommodation for future residents.

 

2.         Absence of a legal agreement to secure an education contribution.

 

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 2.

 

Councillors Misir and Best voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

 

 

 

 

 

The application before Members sought permission for an extension to the main school building, ancillary development to form external play area with canopy and the formation of a new staff car park to be accessed via a new vehicular entrance from Ashvale Gardens. The extensions were required to facilitate greater demand for the existing early years provision at the school. The application was reported to the Committee because the applicant was the Council and an objection had been received.

 

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 whilst there was a need for the additional building the additional parking provision was not required as plenty of parking provision already existed. The objector also commented that the additional car park would be a further hazard to children entering and exiting the school.

 

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the application was a modest extension that would lead to the re-location of the nursery provision at the school and that most of the land required was for the extension and not parking provision.

 

During a brief debate Members discussed the current parking provision at the school and the benefits of the extension.

 

Following a motion to defer consideration of the item which was lost by 4 votes to 7 it was RESOLVED that it be delegated to the Director of Neighbourhoods to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The vote for the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 2.

 

Councillors Hawthorn and Ower voted against the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

 

 

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £3,220 and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

It was RESOLVED that consideration of the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee to allow for officers to deal with queries from neighbour notification letters.

 

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

New Tasty Chicken

7 Station Chambers

Victoria Road

Romford

RM1 2HS

 

 

APPLICANT

PC Oisin Daly

Metropolitan Police

Licensing Dept

Romford Police Station

Main Road

Romford

RM1 3BJ

 

 

1.    Grounds for Review

 

The Metropolitan Police submitted the application to review the premises licence for New Tasty Chicken, in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the Act.

 

The grounds for the licence review were that:

 

·      The premises had shown a disregard for its premises licence conditions

·      Police had no faith in the ability of the premises licence holder to manage the premises

 

             The application to review the premises licence related to the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.

 

Upon submission of the application the licensing authority advertised the application appropriately further to the requirements of regulations 38 and 39 of The Licensing Act 2003 (premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005.

 

 

2.    Details of Representations

 

There were no representations made against or in support of this application.

 

  PC Belinda Goodwin, representing PC Oisin, advised that the premises was situated within the ring road and was therefore part of Havering’s special policy area.

 

PC Goodwin advised that the premises were situated in a crime and disorder hotspot and had also previously been reviewed for failing to provide police with adequate CCTV and the employment of illegal workers.

 

On 7 February 2017 the UK Border Agency had visited the premises and found a male employed at the premises who did not have the relevant entitlement to work in the UK.

 

Police had again visited the premises to view CCTV but there had been no persons on the premises that could operate the CCTV.

 

The police had subsequently requested CCTV footage, relevant paperwork for employees, doorstaff records and a copy of the contract for the town radio link from the applicant but to date had only received CCTV footage that had been unable to be used as the software was incompatible with anything the police used.

 

PC Goodwin advised that the police had concerns over the operation of the premises particularly as the second incident had taken place only eleven weeks after the first review of the premises.

 

 

3.    Applicant’s response.

 

Mr Graham Hopkins, representing the applicant, commented that the applicant, Mr Amer Khan, had had to visit Pakistan to visit his sick mother in law at the beginning of February 2017 which had meant he had been absent from the premises for a period of time.

 

During his absence Mr Khan had asked a friend to look after the business for him but had instructed the friend not to dismiss or hire any members of staff.

 

Mr Hopkins confirmed that the applicant was sorry and remorseful for the events that had taken place at the premises in his absence.

 

Mr Hopkins also confirmed that the applicant had been successful in deterring gang members from loitering around the premises and that there had been no recent evidence of anti-social behaviour in the vicinity.

 

Mr Hopkins advised that all members of staff were now PAYE and records kept that could be provided to the authorities.

 

Mr Hopkins also confirmed that there had been problems with the CCTV system in the past but the system had now been certified as fully functional and any records required could be provided to the police in the future.

It was also confirmed to the Sub-Committee that the rubbish that had been seen at the rear of the premises on the 7 February 2017 was not rubbish attributed to the premises and that the applicant had in place a waste removal contract.

 

 

4.    Determination of Application

 

Consequent upon the hearing held on 15 February 2016, the Sub-Committee’s decision regarding the review of the premises licence for New Tasty Chicken is as set out below, for the reasons stated:

 

The Sub-Committee was obliged to determine the application with a view to promoting the licensing objectives.

 

In making its decision, the Sub-Committee also had regard to the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Havering’s Licensing Policy.

 

In addition the Sub-Committee took account of its obligations under section 117 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

5.    Decision

 

Having considered the oral and written submissions of the applicant and the representations from the responsible authority in relation to the review application the Sub-Committee revoked the premises licence for the following reasons:

 

·         The premises licence holder’s failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the Licensing Sub-Committee at the hearing on 30 November 2016.

·         The premises licence holder’s continued failure to prevent employment of illegal workers at the premises.

·         The premises licence holder’s failure to ensure that the temporary manager left in charge of the premises in the premises licence holder’s absence was someone who understood the premises licence conditions.

 

 

Appeal

 

Any party to the decision may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of notification of the decision. On appeal, the Magistrates Court may make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

Richard Cursons

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-Committee

 

 

 

 

 

This report before Members detailed an application for the redevelopment of part of the open space to the rear of four blocks of three-storey flats on the west side of White Hart Lane. The site, which was Council owned, currently comprised an area of informal amenity space used by the occupants of the flats.  The space was gated and fenced off so that it was not publically accessible. The proposal was to erect sixteen new affordable dwellings comprising six flats and ten houses. The site lay within a predominantly residential area where the redevelopment of the land for housing would be acceptable in principle.

 

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 already enjoyed a low level quality of life in the area and that the proposal would have an impact on the amenity of existing residents. The objector also commented that the proposal would lead to a lack of light in the area and also have a detrimental impact on parking provision in the vicinity of the flats. The objector concluded by commenting that the existing flats had not benefitted from any regeneration or refurbishment.

 

In response the applicant’s agent commented that officers had put together a comprehensive report following a long design process. The agent also commented that the proposal met housing needs in the area and provided high quality homes in a mix of designs. The agent concluded by commenting that regeneration works to the existing flats formed part of 2017/18 Housing Programme.

 

During the debate Members discussed the impact the proposal would have on the existing land and on the amenity of existing residents.

 

Members also sought and received clarification on the distances between the proposed development and existing properties.

 

Members noted that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £27,760 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

 

• A financial contribution of £96,000 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.

 

• 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 obligation (unilateral undertaking) to the date of receipt by the Council.

 

• The provision on site of a minimum of 50% of the units as affordable housing to remain as affordable rented units in perpetuity.

 

• The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the planning obligation prior to the completion of the obligation irrespective of whether the obligation was completed.

 

• Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the unilateral undertaking.

 

That the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services 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 6 votes to 5.

 

Councillors Misir, Best, Kelly, Wallace, White and Donald voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

Councillors Hawthorn, Mugglestone, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The report before Members detailed an application which sought permission for an extension to the main school building, to be located on the western side of the site to provide nursery provision in line with a growing demand for early years’ places. The school was Council owned and an objection had been received.

 

Members noted that a petition had been received from the residents of Granger Way.

 

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

 

The objector commented that access to the school was already limited and that at drop off and pick up times the area was already at saturation point. The objector also commented that the current school already overlooked several neighbouring properties and that the proposal would only exacerbate the problem. The objector concluded by commenting that he had received a letter of support from his local MP.

 

In response the applicant’s agent commented that there was a need for extra school places in the Romford area and that these had to be balanced against the extra traffic that would be created. The Council’s Highways service had deemed that the extra vehicular movements would be manageable.

 

During a brief debate Members sought and clarified the distance between the proposed extension and the the neighbouring properties.

 

Members also discussed the current parking arrangements in the area including the use of the school car park on Sundays by the local church.

 

It was RESOLVED to delegate to the Director of Neighbourhoods to grant planning permission subject to the expiry of the neighbour consultation period and subject to this not generating any further representations which raised new material considerations not covered within the committee report. Should any such further representations raising new material considerations be received then the application to go back to the Committee for determination. Also the attachment of an additional planning condition requiring that the car park fence have additional screening attached to mitigate the effect of headlights shining into residential premises in Granger way.

 

 

 

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 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.