Decisions

 

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 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 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.

 

 

Gambling Act 2005

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

Good Intent 

South End Road

Hornchurch

RM12 5NU

 

 

APPLICANT

Spirit Pub Company (Services) Ltd

 

 

1.    Details of application

 

The application to vary a gaming machine permit was made by Spirit Pub Company (Services) Ltd under section 283/schedule 13 of the Gambling Act 2005

 

2.    Details of requested variation

 

The application to vary the site’s gaming permit was made appropriately.  It seeks to increase the number of gaming machines to be made available for use from the current limit of five to six.

 

 

3.    Details of Representations

 

The Sub-Committee noted that was no representation either from interested parties or from a responsible authority.

 

 

4.    Determination

 

Consequently upon the hearing held on 6 April 2017, the Sub-Committee’s decision regarding the application to vary the category C gaming machines licence was as set out below, for the reasons shown:

 

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

In making its decision, the Sub-Committee also had regard to: -

 

a.    the Gambling Act 2005,

b.    in accordance with the codes of practise issued by the Commission under section 24,

c.    in accordance with the Guidance to Licensing Authorities issued by the Commission under s. 25,

d.    in accordance with the licensing policy published by the London Borough of Havering pursuant to s. 349.

 

5.    Decision

 

During its deliberation, the Sub-Committee noted that the Licensing Officer recently inspected the premises about 6 weeks ago. 

 

The Sub-Committee was informed by the Licensing Officer that the premises was to undergo some refurbishment that he thought would include carpet replacement and some paint work, yet in the Applicant’s letter dated 22 March 2017 the works were described as a redevelopment. It was the intention of the Licensing Officer to visit the premises following the redevelopment and ascertain the location of the category C machines.

 

The Sub-Committee had some concern regarding the non-attendance of the applicant or any representative to respond to issues of concern that included the potential for harm to children and vulnerable people, the staffing levels and understanding of the Gambling and Licensing objectives.

 

In reaching its decision the Sub Committee considered the Gambling Act 2005, the Gambling Commissions Guidance to Licensing Authorities, Gambling Commissions Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice, and the Council’s Statement of Gambling Policy. In discharging its functions the Sub Committee did so with a view to promoting all the licensing objectives and in particular protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

 

Having considered all the evidence put before it the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application for a variation to an existing premises gaming machine permit.

 

Spirit Pub Company (Services) Limited on behalf of the Good Intent PH, South End Road, Hornchurch RM12 5NU.

 

The Applicant was not represented at the hearing.

 

The Council’s Statement of Gambling Policy at paragraph 10.7 states that the application will be referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee at which it is expected that a representative of the Applicant will be present to deal with any issues arising out of the application. The Sub-Committee took account of their knowledge of the premises and were unable to determine the application because they did not have sufficient information about the following matters.

 

1            A list of the gaming machines currently on the premises, and the category of each one.

 

2            Staff training (which may be provided, for example, by providing a copy of the training manual).

 

3            Supervision of the gaming machines by staff and CCTV, and the retention policy of the CCTV film.

 

4            The application of the Think 21 Challenge and whether gambling infringements are recorded in a log, and the retention policy for the log.

 

5            The exact location of the gambling machines bearing in mind the additional gaming machine would not be installed until after the proposed renovations were complete and the Council’s Statement of Gambling Policy at paragraph 10.6.

 

6.    Right of Appeal

 

Any party to the decision or anyone who has made a relevant representation [including a responsible authority or interested party] in relation to the application may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of notification of the decision. On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

 

 

1.         dismiss the appeal; or

2.         substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

 

Taiwo Adeoye

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-committee

 

 

 

The proposal before Members was for the erection of 58 flats on top of the existing Hexagon House building.

 

The current scheme differed from the previous submission in that the amount of storeys proposed had been reduced from 5 to 4 and the new residential units from 71 to 58. The applicant had also revised the internal layout by removing the 3-bedroom units. The current scheme proposed 30 1-bedroom units and 28 2-bedroom units of additional accommodation.

 

During a brief debate Members raised issues that had been raised previously about the larger proposal and felt that the newly submitted proposal changed very little.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be approved however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as per the reasons for the previous refusal except for refinement of the amenity based reason so it related specifically to the inadequacy of communal amenity space within the development.

 

 

 

The report before Members proposed removal of industrial buildings and the development of nine residential properties and garages.

 

During the debate Members discussed the current untidy and unkempt condition of the site and there was general agreement that the site needed attending to.

 

Members also discussed the judgment call that was needed between tidying the site and the loss of the Green Belt.

 

Members also discussed the existing controls that were in place regarding the current use of the land.

 

Members also sought and received clarification relating to the current use and the enforcement action that could be taken.

 

Discussions also took place relating to the possible landscaping conditions that could be included with an approval of planning permission.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be refused. Following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was lost by 4 votes to 7. It was RESOLVED that consideration of the item be deferred to provide staff the opportunity to seek to negotiate revisions to the proposal based on:

 

·       Residential site curtilage material similar to the 2007 bungalow scheme which had been resolved acceptable subject to completion of  a legal agreement

·       That all other land used for the current commercial activity and not forming part of the above residential curtilage be returned to open Green Belt condition

·       In accordance with details to be set out within the application

·       That all commercial activity on the entire site be extinguished via legal agreement

·       That the residential development comprise of single storey/low rise buildings only

·       That the proposal included extensive, well considered landscaping especially around the site margins

·       Confirmation of the applicant’s intended completion of legal agreement for education contributions

 

In event of the applicant either deciding to revise or to keep the proposal as is without amendment either the application would be brought back to the Committee for determination.

 

Members also noted that if a scheme became resolved as acceptable further engagement would be needed with the Mayor for London on Green Belt related referral plus referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the 1999 Direction Order.

 

The vote for the resolution to defer consideration of the item was carried by 7 votes to 4.

 

Councillors Misir, Wallace, Hawthorn, Van den Hende, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to defer consideration of the item.

 

Councillors Best, Kelly, White and Nunn voted against the resolution to defer consideration of the item.

 

 

 

The proposal before Members was for a change of use from a shop (A1) to a restaurant (A3) at 17 Clockhouse Lane, a new seating area to the existing restaurant at 19 Clockhouse Lane, new shop fronts and the amalgamations of the ground floors at 17-19 Clockhouse Lane.

 

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Ray Best on the grounds that there was sufficient public interest generated, confirmed by a petition and numerous letters in support of the application.

 

During a brief debate Members discussed the current set up and operation of the business.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried by 8 votes to 3 it was RESOLVED to delegate to the Assistant Director of Planning subject to imposition of planning conditions to grant planning permission and to include a specific requirement that within three months of the use first commencing that an extract filtration and extract system should be installed and operated in full accordance with a scheme which shall previously have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

The vote for the resolution was carried by 8 votes to 3.

 

Councillors Misir, Best, Kelly, Wallace, White, Van den Hende, Nunn and Whitney voted for the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

 

Councillors Hawthorn, Martin and Williamson voted against the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

 

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that the application was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

 

•         That the residential annexe hereby approved shall be permanently retained as an annexe to the existing dwelling at 92 Kingston Road, Romford and shall not be sub-divided or sold off separately from the main dwelling.

 

•         The Developer/Owner pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

 

•         The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

 

That the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services 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 noting that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £10,902 and without debate RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Deed of Variation under Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary the legal agreement, completed on 2 November 2015, in respect of planning permission P1195.14 by varying the definition of Planning Permission which should mean either planning permission P1195.14 as originally granted or planning permission P1965.16 and any other changes as may be required from this, to secure the following:

 

·       A financial contribution of £48,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs and paid prior to the commencement of development in accordance with 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 Agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

 

·       To pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

 

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

 

That the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement that the Committee delegate authority to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The proposal before Members was for a third floor extension to create one two-bedroom flat with private amenity space on the roof of the converted telephone exchange, together with the extension and alteration of the existing stairwell and externals areas including two new car parking spaces. The flat would be accessed from the existing internal staircase, whilst amenity space for the flat consisted of a terrace that was fenced off.

 

Members noted that the application had been called in to committee by Councillor Steven Kelly to discuss the height changes so prevalent on council owned property and seemingly not on private schemes.

 

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 would be out of keeping within the streetscene and would harm the character of the building. The objector also commented that residents using the additional parking spaces would have to reverse out onto a main road. The objector concluded by commenting that existing resident’s amenity would be greatly affected during the construction period.

 

The applicant’s agent responded by commenting that careful consideration had been given to the proposal which had allowed for the proposal to be set back from the front of the existing building. The agent concluded that the proposal complied with the local development plan and would not be detrimental on the area.

 

During a brief debate Members discussed the impact the proposal would have on the area and clarified the reasons as to why officers had recommended the proposal for refusal.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that it be delegated to Assistant Director of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission contrary to recommendation and subject to prior completion of a legal agreement to secure an education places contribution plus the imposition of planning conditions.

 

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

 

Councillor White voted against the resolution to delegate the approval of planning permission.

 

The report before Members proposed the demolition of an existing garage and construction of new dwelling adjoining the existing with private amenity space, off street car parking and a new double garage.

 

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Osman Dervish as he believed that the dwelling being proposed would be in keeping with other homes in the area and provide decent family housing which was much needed in the borough. Furthermore, its impact on the streetscene deserved closer scrutiny given other schemes locally.

 

With its agreement Councillor Osman Dervish addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Dervish commented that the proposal would provide additional housing for the family of the existing occupier. Councillor Dervish also commented that the proposal was not detrimental to the streetscene and would provide good amenity space for the future occupier. Councillor Dervish concluded by commenting that the proposal was of a similar nature to previously agreed schemes in the area and would also provide additional funding for school places as part of the legal agreement.

 

During a brief debate Members sought and received clarification of the proposed room sizes and the future layout of neighbouring properties in relation to the proposal site.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried by 7 votes to 3 with 1 abstention it was RESOLVED to delegate to the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission contrary to recommendation and subject to prior completion of a legal agreement to secure an education places contribution plus the imposition of planning conditions.

 

The vote for the resolution to delegate the approval of planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 3 with 1 abstention.

 

Councillors Misir, Best, Kelly, Wallace, White, Nunn and Whitney voted for the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

 

Councillors Hawthorn, Van den Hende and Martin voted against the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

 

Councillor Williamson abstained from voting.

 

The report before Members detailed a proposal for the demolition of existing rear additions and the erection of a single storey rear extension to create an additional residential flat; a part first floor rear extension to extend the existing self-contained flat; and the installation of an additional shop front and use of the existing side store to be used as a separate retail unit if required.

 

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Jeffrey Tucker. The reasons for the call-in were that he considered that the proposal would provide adequate private parking for one vehicle and would result in an improvement to the site.

 

With its agreement Councillor Jeffrey Tucker addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Tucker commented that the proposal would provide one bedroom accommodation for one person and that parking would be provided. Councillor Tucker also commented that the proposal would be a vast improvement to the area. Councillor Tucker concluded that the applicant wanted to keep the shop open as it provided a good service to the locality.

 

During a brief debate Members sought and received clarification of the parking provision and the curtilages of the site.

 

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to grant planning permission it was RESOLVED to delegate to the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission contrary to recommendation and subject to prior completion of a legal agreement to secure an education places contribution plus the imposition of planning conditions.

 

The proposal before Members was for the construction of an A1 food store within Hornchurch town centre. Planning permission had previously been granted to demolish the former bingo hall building which currently occupied the site.  

 

Following deferral at the Committee meeting on 22 December 2016, the application was again deferred at the 2 February 2017 Committee meeting, on the sole issue of vehicular access/egress concerns at the site entrance onto the High Street. Members had made it clear that they were otherwise satisfied with the proposal.

 

Members had been concerned about the risk of the proposal exacerbating traffic congestion in the surrounding network, especially in the High Street, and had asked Staff to seek that the applicant design a workable and enforceable scheme to address the impact of vehicle movement into and from the High Street, likely to involve a left turn in and left out only configuration. Members had set out that this should consider physical engineering solutions, including for example reconfiguring the access layout, its detailed position, restrictions at the site entrance/ exit to restrict direction of vehicle travel, and potentially highway based measures such as road markings, CCTV and signage with these to be met at the developers cost and covered by legal agreement as necessary. Members had also wished to see potential use of signage and promotion of restrictions to store users to optimise enforcement of the measures.

 

Members had also wanted to see the chosen solution emerge from a high level option appraisal of other potential but dismissed alternatives.

 

In response, the applicant had considered a range of options for the site access arrangements and prepared an appraisal, which was set out in the report.

 

During the debate Members discussed traffic and pedestrian movements when accessing and egressing the site.

 

Members also discussed the options for the provision of CCTV cameras and the possibility of introducing moving traffic contraventions.

 

The Committee noted that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £14,940 and it was 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 £48,750 to be paid prior to the opening of the store to be used for the following:

 

          i) highway works in respect of pavement improvements to the High Street.

 

•         All contribution sums shall 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 is completed.

 

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

 

That it be delegated to the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission subject to prior completion of the legal agreement but incorporate into that a requirement that the developer make an additional contribution to cover the funding for provision and implementation of a CCTV camera to monitor compliance with highway regulations in the vicinity of the site access and also to cover the costs of adding this to the schedule of Moving Traffic Offences. If the latter two items weren’t agreed then consideration of the item would be brought back to Committee for determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The report before Members detailed an application for the conversion of the former Dury Falls Residential Care Home into eight residential units. The project aims to restore the listed building which included the 17^th century Manor House.

 

During a brief debate Members sought clarification of the design of the extensions.

 

It was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

 

•         A financial contribution of £48,000 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 pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

 

•         The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

 

That the Assistant Director of Regulatory Services 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.