Decisions

The Chief Executive will be asked to enter in to a contract for the construction of a two storey building for expansion of existing SEN 16+.

Motion on behalf of the East Havering Residents Group

That Councillor Linda Van den Hende be elected Mayor for the Municipal Year 2017/18.

Following a proposing speech by the Councillor Ron Ower, seconded by Councillor Linda Hawthorne, Councillor Linda Van den Hende was ELECTED as Mayor for the municipal year 2017/18, without division.

Councillor Linda Van den Hende, having made the Declaration of Acceptance of Office of Mayor as required by the Local Government Act 1972, then took the Chair and thanked the Council for the honour conferred upon her. The Mayor indicated that her consort would be her husband, Laurence Chalk. 

 In accordance with the Local Government Act 1972, the Mayor signified in writing her appointment of Councillor Dilip Patel as Deputy Mayor for the ensuing year and to carry out the duties of the Mayor in case of the Mayor’s illness or absence.

Councillor Patel made the Declaration of Acceptance of Office accordingly. The Mayor indicated that the Deputy Mayor’s Consort for the year would be Mrs Nisha Patel. 

Member Champions were appointed as follows:

For Equalities and Diversity – Councillor Stephanie Nunn (RA)

For the Armed Forces – Councillor John Crowder (Cons)

For the Historic Environment – Councillor Linda Hawthorn (EHRG)

For the Over Fifties – Councillor Linda Van den Hende (EHRG)

For the Voluntary Sector Compact – Councillor Viddy Persaud (Cons)

For Younger Persons – Councillor Alex Donald (EHRG)

Members were appointed by Council to positions as follows:

Sub-Committee of the Governance Committee:

Report of the Chief Executive APPROVED without division.

NOTED changes to membership of the Cabinet that were announced by the Leader of the Council.

The Members present named in minutes 5 and 9 (the Mayoralty and various Committee Chairmanships) who were candidates for offices attracting a Special Responsibility Allowance, each declared a personal interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct as, if elected, they would benefit from the Members’ Allowance Scheme 2016-17.

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 22 March 2017 were before the Council for approval.

It was AGREED, without division, that the minutes be signed as a correct record.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as per officer’s recommendation for the reasons as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as per officer’s recommendation for the reasons as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £4,960 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:

•           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 monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

•           In the event that it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to completion of the s106 agreement by 11 November 2017 or in the event that the s106 agreement was not completed by 11 November 2017 the item shall be returned to the Committee for reconsideration.

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 detailed an application for the demolition of fifteen commercial storage units and the change of use of the land to enable erection of five detached dwellings.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor John Crowder on the grounds of Green Belt and the fact that the site backed on to a nature reserve and would have a detrimental effect to the area.

Councillor Crowder had been unable to attend the meeting but a verbal update was given to the Committee.

Councillor Crowder had stated that the planning proposal would have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding established properties, due to the overbearing out of scale, design and bulk. The proposal would be an over development within the Green Belt and one that backed on to a nature reserve. The road was of an unmade nature which local residents were happy to have in its natural state which stopped speeding cars and other vehicles.

Councillor Crowder had also commented that:

·         The development would have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours. Amongst other factors noise, disturbance of overlooking, loss of privacy and over shadowing.

·         Unacceptable high density/over development of the site

·         Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood

·         The over development would cause drainage problems for the lower lying residential properties.

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

The objector commented that the site lay within the Green Belt and the Havering Ridge area of special character which was not brownfield land and that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on both. The objector also commented that there would an increased noise nuisance and that the proposal was in breach of the Council’s planning policies.

The applicant responded by commenting that the land was designated as a brownfield site and that the plans had been altered to minimise overlooking. The applicant concluded by commenting that the proposed dwellings would be screened from the road and that the proposal was a good development.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification of the site boundaries and further details of the certificate of lawfulness that had been applied for last year.

Members also discussed the possible harm that the proposal would bring to the Green Belt.

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

·         Harm to the openness and character of the Green Belt, resulting from residential nature of the scheme, including the presence of fencing and domestic paraphernalia.

·         Lack of a legal agreement to secure financial contribution towards education provision.

The proposal before Members was for the erection of a new college building to be known as a 'Construction and Infrastructure Skills and Innovation Centre'. The new facility would provide a series of classrooms and specialised workshops associated with construction and infrastructure skills. The proposal would also deliver a section of the strategic Rainham east-west cycle/pedestrian path.

During the debate Members discussed the poor access to public transport facilities and the problems with displaced parking in the area in particular in Passive Close.

It was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to allow officers to contact the applicant to explore:

·         Whehter more parking spaces could be provided on site.

·         Whether the land to the north of the site was within the applicant's control.

·         Whether there was a highway safety issue in Passive Close arising from the proposal.

·         Whether the new building could be located further away from the existing building to facilitate vehicular access from New Road instead of Passive Close.