Decisions

The proposal before Members was for the erection of a single storey side extension.

The subject property was a 1934 Exhibition House which was designed in an Art Deco style. Its distinct appearance formed an important, integral part of the Gidea Park Conservation Area within which it was located.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Osman Dervish as he believed the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene or amenity. Councillor Dervish had also called the application in on the grounds of precedent as well as adding to the conservation area.

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 property was part of the Gidea Park Conservation Area and that design was of importance in keeping the original heritage of the property. The objector concluded by commenting that she was in agreement with officer’s recommendation in the report supporting refusal.

The applicant commented that he had purchased the property ten years ago and that he had subsequently been advised that the existing garage had been constructed in the 1960s. The applicant also commented that the garage was now in a dilapidated state and needed repairing or replacing.

With its agreement Councillor Osman Dervish addressed the Committee.

Councillor Dervish commented that he supported the application and that the applicant had made amendments to the front line of the proposal so as not to impact on neighbouring properties. Councillor Dervish concluded by commenting that no neighbouring residents had objected to the proposal and that other properties in the area had undergone planning changes with permission given by delegated powers.

During the debate Members discussed the impact the proposal would have on the conservation area and the marginal difference the application proposed against what was already in situ.

Following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was lost by 3 votes to 8, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons given in the report.

The vote for the refusal to grant planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

Councillor Misir voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

The application before Members was for enabling works to prepare a site for development, including clearing of on-site structures, addressing contamination, importation and positioning of crushed material on site for up to nine months (preventing future settlement), localised piling and installation of band drainage.

With its agreement Councillor David Durant wished to address the Committee in relation to this application and the following two other applications (P1058.17/P0782.17) on the agenda as a whole.

Councillor Durant commented that although the applications before the Committee were outline plans with more detailed applications to follow, it was important that all the proposals were sustainable going forward.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include the following amendments.

Condition 4. Details of the approach for deliveries and lorry routing were set out in the submitted Construction Logistics Plan. The wording of the condition could therefore be amended to read.

“HGV access to and from the site shall be via the A13/ Marsh Way junction and use of the A1306 only for the section between Marsh Way and Thames Avenue, in line with the approach set out within the Construction Logistic Plan and as illustrated in the Logistics Plan Drawing LPSKenb 001 A, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.”

Conditions 5 and 6 to be replaced by a single condition requiring the provision of temporary car parking and cycle parking as set out in the submitted Construction Logistics Plan.  Condition to be worded as follows:

“Prior to the commencement of the operations hereby permitted 37 temporary car parking spaces and 2 temporary Sheffield stands for cycles should be provided on site in line with the submitted Construction Logistics Plan and subsequent e-mail exchange with TfL dated 15 October 2017 and should be retained thereafter for the duration of the construction phase.”

Condition 8 (to be Condition 7) Borehole Decommissioning to be re-worded as follows.

“During the spreading of fill material all monitoring wells within the surcharge area for the investigation of soils, groundwater or geotechnical purposes should be protected. The headworks of the identified wells would be revised and then would be protected by concrete rings during the raising of the ground levels. In those circumstances, where protection was not possible, wells should be decommissioned in line with Environment Agency guidance and, if required, may need to be re-drilled in the future. Prior to the removal of surcharge material, a scheme detailing how remaining monitoring wells were to be decommissioned and how any boreholes that needed to be retained post development, for monitoring purposes, should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.” 

Add the following condition:

“All works undertaken in connection with this planning permission should be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted Construction Method Statement/Management Plan.

Reason: To ensure that the development did not cause adverse impact on the surrounding area.”

Conditions to be re-numbered as required.

The application before Members proposed the demolition of the existing building and erection of two replacement front and rear blocks comprising a total of thirty-five residential units and a ground floor commercial unit with a flexible use as A1 retail/ A2 financial and professional services/ A3 restaurant and cafes/ B1 office/ D1 non-residential/ D2 assembly and leisure.

The application was deferred at the meeting on 24 August 2017, as Members had wished for Staff to undertake further discussions with the applicant in relation to viability; specifically in order to resolve if any on-site affordable housing provision could be agreed in addition to the required education contribution.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Frederick Thompson on the grounds that he believed the proposal would reduce the housing shortage and would not be too tall for its location.

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 there were concerns relating to noise nuisance and hours of work during the construction phase. The objector also commented about levels of dust and impact delivery vehicles would have on the site. The objector concluded by commenting that he wished for a pre-construction survey to be undertaken on his property to ensure no damage was caused during the construction period and that he was unhappy with officers’ comments in the report.

With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.

Councillor Thompson commented that he felt that the proposal would go some way to alleviating housing shortages in the area and that the proposal was of a suitable nature and would sit well in the streetscene.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification relating to the Highways contribution and debated any changes to the proposal since it had last been considered in August 2017.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the report which detailed an outline planning permission and without debate RESOLVED that the Assistant Director of Development be authorised to enter into any subsequent legal agreement to secure the requirement of Condition 30, including that:

§   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 planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include an additional informative that recommended that letter boxes for all units to be accessible from the external parts of the building.

The Committee considered the report detailing an outline planning permission and RESOLVED that the Assistant Director of Development be authorised to enter into any subsequent legal agreement or other appropriate mechanism to secure the requirement of Condition 34 below, including that:

§   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 planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include an additional informative that recommended that letter boxes for all units to be accessible from the external parts of the building.

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £7,300 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 26 April 2018, and in the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed by such date then the power to refuse the application be delegated to the Assistant Director of Development:

•         A financial contribution of £36,000 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 or new permit controlled parking scheme.

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

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 planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

PREMISES:

The Bell Inn

Broadway, Rainham

RM13 9YW

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application for a Summary Review of the Premises Licence was made by PC Oisin Daly on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, under section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003.  The application was received by Havering Licensing Authority at 13:00 on 25 October 2017.

APPLICANT

PC Oisin Daly

Romford Police Station

Main Road, Romford

RMI 3BJ

1.              Details of existing licensableactivities

The venue had a Premises Licence number 001561 which permitted the sale of alcohol - Monday to Sunday – 11.00 to 23.00

The current licence holder at the premises was Miss Sharon Elizabeth Rogers.

2.              Grounds for Summary Review

The application for the premises licence review had been served under section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003 following the wounding of two individuals in an altercation at the Bell Inn.

A certificate under section 53A(1)(b) of the Licensing Act 2003 was signed by Superintendent Sean Wilson. It was his opinion that the premises are associated with serious crime or serious disorder, or both.

3.               Details of Representation

Metropolitan Police

PC Oisin Daly addressed the Sub-Committee orally, provided a written summary, in addition to the application and supporting evidence he provided with it.

The Sub-Committee was informed that the suspect has been arrested but that the firearm remained outstanding.

PC Belinda Goodwin showed the Sub-Committee extracts of CCTV from the premises and photographs of the wounds to the victims. She identified on the CCTV footage, the following:

• The suspect, and his associates.
• The licence holder, Ms Rogers
• The victims of the assaults
• Open supplying and snorting of what appeared to be cocaine
• The brandishing of an asp and a firearm by the suspect
• The victim coming into view of the CCTV from having been assaulted outside (he was wearing no shoes)
• Injury to a victim who was handed some white paper towel from behind the bar to clean himself
• The victim was then assaulted again by the suspect seemingly with the asp
• The suspect holding the asp in one hand and the firearm in another
• The taking of the firearm to somewhere else in the pub and then being concealed within what appeared to be the same white paper from the pub
• The removal of the samurai sword to somewhere else in the pub when it had just been used to wound someone

PC Oisin Daly also provided a police rationale for summary review in accordance with s.182 guidance, that supported his application.

4.               Response from the Premises Licence holder

Although Ms Rogers had told the police that she would attend, she didn’t and provided no written representations.

5.               Determination of Application

The Sub-Committee determined the application for a review of the premises licence in accordance with section 53 of the Licensing Act 2003 and considered the matter with a view to promoting the licensing objectives. In making its decision the Sub-Committee had regard to the Guidance issued under section 182 of the 2003 Act and the local authority’s licensing policy. In addition, the Sub-Committee took account of its obligations under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Sub-Committee were mindful of the need to reach a decision that was appropriate and proportionate and justified on the evidence.

The Sub-Committee listened carefully to the submissions made by the police.

The Sub-Committee considered the interim steps that they must take into account, namely:

(a) The modification of the conditions of the premises licence;

(b) The exclusion of the sale of alcohol by retail from the scope of the licence;

(c) The removal of the designated premises supervisor from the licence;

(d) The suspension of the licence.

The Sub-Committee found there had been a serious failure to uphold the licensing objectives; there were members of the public present who were put at risk of harm and would have been frightened, there were children that lived on the premises and an abject failure by management to deal with, or manage the risk.

The presence of a firearm being openly brandished, a samurai sword used in the attack that was moved, and held by Ms Rogers, after its use, and that acid had been found at the scene were serious breaches of the licence conditions, along with a failure by Ms Rogers to call the police and ambulance service.

In light of the serious danger of the weapons involved, the credible risk of retaliation, the Sub-Committee determined it was necessary to suspend the licence. The Sub-Committee considered the possibility that it afforded for changes to the Interim Measure upon receipt of representations by Ms Rogers, and for ongoing review should there be a material change of circumstances.

Richard Cursons

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-Committee

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 April 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Following receipts of nominations and in accordance with the oneSource legal agreement, Councillor Ron Ower was elected as Chair for the 2017/18 municipal. Councillor Lester Hudson was elected as Vice-Chair.

Following a decision at Newham’s Mayoral Proceedings on 20 July 2017 to change the delegations in respect of the leasing of property to the voluntary and community sector, the Joint Committee was required to amend its scheme of delegation to officers in oneSource.

The Joint Committee agreed the amendments to the Scheme of Delegation at Appendix A of the report (appended to these minutes).

The report from the Managing Director updated Members on the governance services review, Oracle implementation, and commercial developments.

Concerning the governance services review it was reported that a business case and a five year strategy for the future direction of oneSource had been drafted for approval by the three councils in September 2017. It was noted that an update would be provided at the next Joint Committee meeting.

The Joint Committee noted the report.

The Joint Committee had been notified at previous meetings that the request by Newham Council to transfer its element of the Council Tax and Benefits service from oneSource back into Newham Council’s responsibility had been agreed by both Havering and Bexley Councils.

Subsequent to the previous meeting, a deed of variation had been drafted to reflect the change and preparations were underway to implement the transfer of service.

The Joint Committee noted the report.

In accordance with the oneSource legal agreement, the Committee was provided an annual report on the activities of oneSource over the past financial year, including an account of financial matters and an explanation of the main plans and activities for the coming year.

Members remarked that future drafts should include an executive summary. It was agreed that this be included for future drafts.

The Joint Committee noted the draft annual report.

The report before Members provided details of performance with oKPI 1 Customer Satisfaction with oneSource services. The indicator was collected by an electronic survey campaign, which was undertaken biannually.

Members noted that the oneSource Business Services team monitors the relationship between oneSource and its customers and overall performance, ensuring oneSource meets the expectations of the programme and needs of its customers.

A challenging target 80% customer satisfaction target has been set for oneSource to exceed in 2016/17. For March 2017, combined customer satisfaction increased to 75%, rising by 3% since the previous survey conducted in September 2016, and slightly lower than the 80% target.

Individually, customer satisfaction with the service received was 82% from Havering customers, 65% from Newham customers, 89% from Bexley customers and 83% from oneSource customers. The best performing services were Strategic Finance (82%), Health and Safety (98%), Printing Services (95%), and Internal Audit and Counter Fraud (85%), Business Improvement (85%) and Project Management Office (82%).

These figures demonstrated that oneSource had made significant improvements to the delivery of its services but still required further action to combat the disparity in satisfaction for all three customers.

The Joint Committee noted oneSource’s Customer Satisfaction key performance indicator (KPI).

It was reported that the overall oneSource shared outturn position showed an underspend of £0.080m, split between £0.195m to Havering, £0.045m  to Newham and £0.070m to Bexley. The Havering underspend had been transferred to its oneSource reserve held on the balance sheet. Newham had met its pressure by transferring in funding from its oneSource reserve (funded by prior years’ underspends). Bexley’s overspend had been offset by underspends elsewhere in the council.

The non-shared areas closed with the following variances:- Havering non-shared (£1.3m), Newham non-shared (£1.4m) and Bexley non-shared (£0.560).

It was also reported that the period 3 (2017/18) forecast outturn position for oneSource shared is £2.3m overspend; this was largely due to growth in demand for ICT services. This pressure is split between Havering, Newham and Bexley as follows; £1.044m to Havering, £1.092m to Newham and £0.190m to Bexley.

The period 3 forecasted outturn position for oneSource non-shared areas were Havering non-shared (£0.038m), Newham (£3.5m) and Bexley nil variance.

It was noted that as of period 3 (2017/18), Newham benefits and council tax services had moved out of Newham oneSource non-shared to Newham’s Communities directorate and would therefore no longer form part of the overall non-shared reporting position. It was not included in the early indications figures contained within the report before Members.

The Joint Committee: -

1.    noted the 2016-17 oneSource outturn position;

2.    noted the early indications derived from the 2017/18 period 3 forecasted position;

3.    noted the transfer out Exchequer Services from Newham non-shared to Newham’s Communities directorate.

The report notified Members of amendments arising from changes in the management and departmental structures and functions.  The report also proposed minor variations to the arrangement of the Members’ Code of Conduct to make the requirements clearer, and updated Members on proposed steps to be taken by the Monitoring Officer to assist members in understanding their obligations under the Code. It was reported that further reports on proposed changes would be presented to the Committee during the course of the year.

The Committee:

1.    Noted the updates to the Constitution outlined in this report

2.    Agreed that the proposed changes to the Councillor Code of Conduct be recommended to Council.

The vote for the resolution was approved by 12 votes to 1. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution.

The report stated that at its meeting on 14 June 2017, Council approved a motion for the creation of a cross party review group to consider recommending changes to the current overview & scrutiny arrangements. The report before Members proposed the terms of reference for that review group.

The Committee agreed the terms of reference for the cross party review group subject to the removal of co-opted members. It was agreed that Councillor Michael White would be Chairman of the review.

Members were informed that responsibility for the permanent appointment of senior officers who fall under the JNC for Chief Officers’ term and conditions of employment (i.e. Directors, Assistant Directors and Heads of Service) is delegated to the Appointment Sub-Committee under the Councils Constitution – Part 3 – Responsibility for Functions, Section 1.2 – Functions delegated to general council committees.

It was explained however that the Constitution is silent on where responsibility resides for non-permanent appointments (i.e. interim, temporary or fixed term) to these posts. Following the recent changes to the reformed intermediaries legislation (known as IR35) it became necessary to cover two key senior posts at very short notice on a fixed term contract basis. Due to the urgency of the situation, the Chief Executive sought the permission of the Appointment Sub-Committee members to make these fixed term appointments (of 12 months) without the need for an Appointment Sub-Committee Panel.

It was noted that no objections to this proposal had been received from members so the two fixed term appointments (of 12 months) were made to the Head of Communications and Section 151 Officer posts.

The report identified that there could be occasions where non-permanent appointments to this level of post may be necessary. Therefore, Part 3, Section 1.2 of the Councils Constitution should be amended to clarify the responsibility for non-permanent appointments.

In addition, it was proposed that the process for making appointments to Chief Officer posts as a consequence of a senior management restructure or realignment be reviewed and amended to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.

Finally, it was proposed that the terminology used in Part 3, Section 1.2 of the Council’s Constitution be simplified and standardised so that job titles such as Director, Assistant Director and Head of Service are replaced with the generic terms of Chief/Deputy Chief Officer and/or officers that fall under the JNC for Chief Officers term and conditions of employment. This will result in fewer amendments as a result of job tittle changes in the future.

The Committee:

1.    Agreed to the proposals set out in paragraphs 7-9 of this report for non-permanent appointments to senior posts that fall under the JNC for Chief Officers’ term and conditions of employment..

2.    Agreed to the changes proposed set out in paragraphs 12-15 of this report to the process for making appointments to Chief Officer posts as a consequence of a senior management restructure or realignment and that the policy set out in Appendix 2 of the report be amended as appropriate.

3.   Agreed to the amendment in terminology used in Part 3, Section 1.2 of the Councils Constitution and the Staff Employment Procedure Rules in Part 4 of the Constitution to replace job titles such as Director, Assistant Director and Head of Service with the generic terms of Chief/Deputy Chief Officer and/or officers that fall under the JNC for Chief Officers terms and conditions of employment.

4.   Agreed that the constitutional changes in recommendations 1 and 3 above be reported to Council for final agreement and for the authority to be given to the Monitoring Officer to make those changes to the Constitution.

The report explained that the Council makes appointments to a large number of other organisations, some statutory, others voluntary. In the case of the Hornchurch Housing Trust, the Council appoints a number of nominative trustees for four year terms of office expiring in sequence over each four year period.

It was reported that Mr Ivor Cameron had resigned from the Trust on 24 July 2017 after many years service,  owing to ill health. A successor needed to be appointed for the remainder of the term of office, expiring in February 2018.

Nominations were received and seconded for the appointment of Councillors Joshua Chapman and Ray Morgon.

After a vote, the Committee RESOLVED to appoint Councillor Joshua Chapman as a nominative trustee of the Hornchurch Housing Trust.

Councillor Chapman received 7 votes (from Councillors Davis, Wallace, Ramsey, White, Dervish, Barrett and Wise). Councillor Morgon received 6 votes (from Councillors Morgon, Matthews, Mugglestone, Webb, Durant and Darvill).

The minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 20 July 2017 were agreed as a correct record subject to the amendment of the attendance record which failed to register Councillor Lawrence Webb as being present. The Chairman subsequently signed the minutes.