Agenda item

The report explained that consideration of two applications for permanent buildings had been deferred from 17 November 2011 Regulatory Services Committee in order to provide an opportunity for the applicant to fully explain the case he wished to promote for very special circumstances. The deferral also gave an opportunity to enable Staff to provide a fuller explanation of the two stage Green Belt assessment and how any harm (in principle and any other) must be outweighed by very special circumstances; and to explain why the physical condition/appearance of the land would not diminish its Green Belt function or status.  The applicant had submitted very special circumstances for permission to be granted in the Green Belt; these were detailed in the report to Members.  In addition, a fuller explanation of the Green Belt and its function was also detailed in the report to Members.

Since that meeting, two further applications had been received for the same buildings which sought permission on a temporary basis for 5 years (planning references: P1768.11 – Steel clad building; P1778.11 – canopy building). The applications were retrospective as the structures had already been erected.  In staff’s view, by virtue of their scale, bulk and connection to services the structures were not considered to be temporary in nature. 

It was explained that the canopy building was in a central location beyond the existing frontage buildings and was comprised of steel uprights and roof beams with a plywood/canvas roof covering. The steel-clad building was situated adjacent to the eastern boundary.

The report informed members that the applicant had stated that a removals business had operated on the site since 1934. A special circumstances case had been submitted for both buildings and for both the permanent and 5-year temporary applications.

The applicant had also offered to have none of his existing business containers within an area marked “B” which was an area of land between the front building line of 178 Crow Lane and a line slightly forward of the canopy.  Also, within the area marked “A” (which covers the remainder of the applicant’s site) the applicant offered to limit the number of containers stacked on top of each other to a maximum of 5. He advised of his willingness to enter into a S106 legal agreement such that he would agree to be tied to this arrangement for his existing container business if planning permission was granted for the canopy and the steel clad building.

The report detailed the material considerations affecting all of the applications and the report consolidated consideration of all 4 applications. It was reported that the applications would be determined separately through separate resolutions of the Committee.

It was noted that six letters of support had been received in connection with all the applications. No objections were received relating to the applications for permanent permission. Two letters have been received objecting to the canopy building (temporary). Two pieces of correspondence have been received raising objections to the steel-clad building (temporary). Comments from 2 statutory consultees had also been received.

Members discussed at length whether the buildings caused any material harm to the open nature of the Green Belt. Members were reminded of the two-stage test which had to be considered for such applications in the Green Belt and were guided towards the section of the report which detailed the very special circumstances submitted by the applicant. Members voiced their support for some of the very special arguments put forward by the applicant. In particular, members were sympathetic to the arguments in respect of health and safety, and the continued vitality of the business in the current economic downturn and the business’s contribution to the local economy through continued employment for its staff.

P1413.11 - 178 Crow Lane, Romford

The report recommended that planning permission be refused; however, following a motion it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the canopy as it was considered that the Green Belt harm was outweighed by the applicant's demonstration of very special circumstances. The Committee resolved to grant permission subject to the applicant's prior completion of a planning obligation for the following: 

a)         Limiting height of container storage in 'Area A' on the submitted plan to 5 maximum and;

b)         Not storing any containers in Area B on the submitted plan. 

The resolution to grant planning permission on this basis was subject to no contrary direction by the Secretary of State.

The vote for the motion to grant planning permission was passed by 8 votes to 2 with 1 abstention.  Councillors Brace, Taylor, Osborne, Misir, Galpin, Hawthorn, Ower, and Rochford voted in favour of the motion. Councillors Oddy and Durant voted against the resolution and Councillor McGeary abstained from the voting.

The resolution to grant planning permission was passed by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. Councillors Durant voted against the resolution and Councillor McGeary abstained from voting.

P1414.11 - 178 Crow Lane, Romford

The report recommended that planning permission be refused; however, following a motion it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the steel clad building as it was considered that the Green Belt harm was outweighed by the applicant's demonstration of very special circumstances. The Committee resolved to grant permission subject to the applicant's prior completion of a planning obligation for the following:

a)         Limit height of container storage in 'Area A' to 5 maximum and;

b)         Not storing any containers in 'Area B'.

In addition, a condition be included which required the building to be used solely for purposes ancillary to the main use of the site. 

The resolution to grant planning permission on this basis was subject to no contrary direction by the Secretary of State.

The vote for the motion to grant planning permission and the resolution to grant planning permission was passed by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. Councillors Durant voted against the resolution and Councillor McGeary abstained from voting.

P1768.11 - 178 Crow Lane

The report recommended that planning permission be refused; however, following a motion it was RESOLVED that a temporary 5 year planning permission be granted for the steelclad building as it was considered that the Green Belt harm was outweighed by the applicant's demonstration of very special circumstances. The Committee resolved to grant permission subject to the applicant's prior completion of a planning obligation for the following:

a)         Limit height of container storage in 'Area A' to 5 maximum and;

b)         Not storing any containers in 'Area B'.

In addition, a condition be included which required the building to be used solely for purposes ancillary to the main use of the site. 

The resolution to grant planning permission was subject to no contrary direction by the Secretary of State.

The vote for the motion to grant planning permission and the resolution to grant planning permission was passed by 10 votes to 1. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

P1778.11 - 178 Crow Lane

The report recommended that planning permission be refused; however, following a motion it was RESOLVED that a temporary 5 year planning permission be granted for the steelcanopy as it was considered that the Green Belt harm was outweighed by the applicant's demonstration of very special circumstances. The Committee resolved to grant permission subject to the applicant's prior completion of a planning obligation for the following:

a)         Limit height of container storage in 'Area A' to 5 maximum and;

b)         Not storing any containers in Area B. 

The resolution to grant planning permission on this basis is subject to no contrary direction by the Secretary of State.

The vote for the motion to grant planning permission was passed by 9 votes to 2. Councillors Brace, Taylor, Osborne, Misir, Galpin, Hawthorn, Ower, Rochford and McGeary voted in favour of the motion. Councillors Oddy and Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The substantive vote to grant planning permission was passed by 10 votes to 1. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.