Agenda and minutes

The application before Members was for the demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site to create forty six affordable residential units and two commercial units, with new access roads, associated planting, landscaping, servicing and car parking.

The development would comprise of thirty six flats and two commercial units in a three-storey block to the south of the site and a terrace row of ten houses to the north.

The application was deferred at the Committee meeting on 18 June 2015 in order for staff to clarify the current position on the potential inclusion of a GP surgery in the scheme.

Members were advised that the matter was given consideration throughout the design process as a result of the initial local resident and member consultations. Indeed, to facilitate and explore this possibility, the Council spoke directly to a representative of the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) which commissioned most of the hospital and community NHS services in the local areas for which they are responsible.

Commissioning involved deciding what services were needed, and ensured that they were provided. CCGs were overseen by NHS England, which retained responsibility for commissioning primary care services such as GP and dental services, as well as some specialised hospital services. It was also noted that all GP practices now belonged to a CCG.

Staff had led on these discussions which yielded no clear commitment from the CCG to invest in a new GP facility within the proposed Briar Road development.

Officers reported that this remained the current position and it was confirmed most recently on the 24 June 2015 that the CCG were developing an options paper on the need and potential scale of a GP surgery and were exploring the potential and viability of other locations. There were no set timescales for this work to be completed, or decision to be taken.

The view of the Council was to maintain an ‘open door’ approach with regard to the provision of a GP surgery on the Briar Road development and this would be led by the demand and requirements of the CCG, should it occur.

Members were advised that despite the desire from some local residents to have a GP surgery on the Briar Road development, the Council had no powers to insist this should happen, and had expressed throughout the progression of the scheme a willingness to facilitate the provision of a GP surgery only if there was a specific demand and need from the CCG.

Officers advised that as the scheme progressed it would be the Council’s intention to monitor demand for the proposed commercial units, and would welcome expressions of interest from all potential users, including the CCG.

With its agreement Councillor Philip Hyde addressed the Committee.

Councillor Hyde re-iterated some of the points that had been raised at the previous meeting in particular that the proposal was saturating the Harold Hill area with more housing and eroding the clean, safe and green initiatives that were the Council’s corporate objectives.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 307.

The application before Members was seeking planning permission for the reconfiguration of the site frontage to provide five new off street car parking spaces including one disabled parking bay.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Frederick Thompson on the grounds that the proposed parking to the front had a cramped layout making the exit of parked vehicles difficult within the constraints of the perimeter wall and with insufficient room for conveniently turning to exit on to Western Road in first gear which was far busier than the usual for a residential road.

With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.

Councillor Thompson commented that the proposal had a cramped layout and would prove difficult for cars exiting on to Western Road. Councillor Thompson also commented that the increase of parking area would cause noise and disturbance and asked that the Committee refused the proposal on these grounds.

During a brief debate Members discussed the benefits of additional parking in the area and the planning history of the proposal site.

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

The application before Members was for the conversion and extension of a vacant nightclub to an aparthotel (C1 use), including extension of the existing mezzanine floor, the erection of a new second floor and a roof extension to create a total of fifty four bedrooms.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Frederick Thompson due to the impact of the increased building height on the design of the building and its historic interest. There was also concern that the proposals were deficient in terms of the collection of waste and laundry facilities.

With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.

Councillor Thompson commented that the increased building height would detract from the building’s heritage and that there were insufficient proposals in place to deal with refuse arrangements and laundry facilities.

During the debate Members received clarification of the exact nature of an aparthotel and its end users.

Members noted that a condition had been included, by officers, in the proposal that the maximum length of stay was to be ninety days.

Members discussed the contribution to the community the proposal would have and felt that the aparthotel neither provided a hotel service or addressed any local housing issues.

The Committee, in its discussion also considered the height and bulk of the proposal and its impact on the surrounding area.

Following the debate it was RESOLVED that consideration of the application be deferred to allow officers to invite the applicant to:

a)         Revise the scheme to reduce the bulk and impact of the extensions, their effect on the setting and appearance of the building thereby its contribution to the town centre, including its prominence as a heritage asset.

b)         To seek more information (only) on the nature of the proposed "aparthotel" use.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted on a temporary basis subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed application qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £10,980 and without debate 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 £30,000 to be used for education purposes.

·         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.

·         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 is completed.

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

That the Head 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 and without debate RESOLVED that:

1.0   Subject to the developer paying the Council’s reasonable charges in respect of the making of, advertising of, any inquiry costs associated with and the confirmation of the Stopping Up Order pursuant to Regulation 5 of The London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000 that:-

1.1       The Council makes a Stopping Up Order under the provisions of s.247 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) in respect of the area of adopted highway shown zebra hatched on the Plan as the land was required to enable development for which the Council had granted the Planning Permission.

1.2       In the event that no relevant objections were made to the proposal or that any relevant objections that were made were withdrawn then the Order be confirmed without further reference to the Committee.

1.3       In the event that relevant objections were made, other than by a Statutory Undertaker or Transport Undertaker and not withdrawn, that the application be referred to the Mayor for London to determine whether or not the Council could proceed to confirm the Order.

1.4       In the event that relevant objections were raised by a Statutory Undertaker or Transport Undertaker and were not withdrawn the matter may be referred to the Secretary of State for their determination unless the application was withdrawn.