Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 April 2016 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Consideration of the report was deferred at officer’s request to allow for checks of neighbour notifications.

Consideration of the report was deferred at officer’s request to allow staff to review the accuracy of the plans.

The application before Members was for the retrospective planning permission for a loft conversion and dormer window.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Dillip Patel on the grounds of potential invasion of privacy of neighbouring residents.

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 neighbouring properties felt that the dormer was a violation of their privacy. The objector also commented that he believed that the loss of privacy was of detriment to his property’s value.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the applicant had complied with all conditions that were asked of by the Council. The agents also commented that the dormer was only for light to be received in the hallway of the applicant’s property.

With its agreement Councillor Dillip Patel addressed the Committee.

Councillor Patel commented that the current building did not match the planning permission that had previously been applied for. Councillor Patel urged Members of the Committee to look very carefully at the application.

During the debate Members discussed the possible overlooking of neighbouring properties, height of the roof and the bulk and mass of the proposal.

Members also discussed the issue of permitted development rights and how they affected the retrospective application.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 10 votes to 0.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of the harm caused by the dormer’s bulk, size and invasion of privacy.

The report considered two outline planning applications that had been received for the re-development of St. George’s Hospital, Suttons Lane, Hornchurch. The site had been vacant since 2012 and was now surplus to requirements. Both applications were submitted with all matters reserved except for access although the proposals set development parameters and a scale threshold for development. An illustrative master-plan for the overall development of the site had also been submitted.

P0459.16 was a re-submitted and revised application for the partial demolition and re-development of 10.11 hectares of the St George’s Hospital site to provide up to 279 dwellings including the retention and conversion of some of the existing buildings, new build residential housing and apartments, together with the creation and retention of areas of open space, a linear park and swale gardens and play space areas.

P0323.15 was for the re-development of 1.64 ha of the St. Georges Hospital site located to the north west of the site for the purposes of providing up to 3,000 sq m of new healthcare development together with a new vehicular access, plus car parking, infrastructure and landscaping.

During the debate Members discussed the proposed density of the site and the parking provision that was proposed.

Several Members commented that the new re-submitted application improved the original proposal.

Members also discussed the possibility of introducing restricted parking on the site of the medical centre to deter commuter parking.

P0459.15 – Residential Re-development

The Committee noted that as an outline planning application the development proposed would be liable for the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which would be calculated and levied at Reserved Matters stage and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to

A:        No direction to the contrary from the Mayor for London (under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008); and

B:        The Head of Regulatory Services being authorised to negotiate and agree a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• The provision on site of 15% of the units within the development as affordable housing (with a tenure split of 50% social rent to 50% intermediate housing) or alternatively 15% affordable provision on site (with a tenure split of 50% social rent to 50% intermediate housing) or greater than 15% overall affordable provision by providing suitable commuted sum for off-site provision of social rented housing.  Alternatively affordable housing provision to be determined should it be concluded that Vacant Building Credit was applicable.

• Payment of £1,504,000 to the Council to be used for educational purposes

• Payment of £150,000 to the Council for improvements to Hornchurch Country Park

• Payment of £20,000 to Transport for London for improvements to cycle storage facilities at Hornchurch Station.

• To provide training and recruitment scheme for the local workforce during construction period.

• Landscaping and management of all public open space within the development in perpetuity in accordance with an agreed management scheme and the final  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The proposal before Members was for the demolition of a former social club and re-development of the site to provide six one-bedroom flats and one retail unit with ancillary car parking.

The application was originally presented to the Regulatory Services Committee meeting of 31 March 2016 with a recommendation for approval.  It was deferred in order to clarify the following:

-       The extent of notification and verification that it had been undertaken

correctly.

-       The extent of statutory consultation in relation to requirements.

-       To seek the views of Economic Development & Housing and in the case of the latter whether they may have been currently reviewing local parking conditions behind the application site.

-       To ascertain further details on why the loss of the community asset was judged not to contravene planning conditions. 

A full response to the request for clarity was covered later in the report under the ‘Background’ section.

With its agreement Councillor Jeffrey Tucker addressed the Committee.

Councillor Tucker commented that he wished to see the front elevation of the proposal to remain in keeping with other properties in the Rainham Conservation Area. Councillor Tucker also commented that there was an industrial use at the rear of the proposed site and that the current building shielded that use from neighbouring properties.

During a brief debate Members discussed the parking provision included in the proposal and the lack of current parking provision in the area.

Members also sought and received clarification of the exact layout of the residential, retail units and the parking allocated to each use.

The Committee noted that the proposal qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £8,600 and 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 £36,000 to be paid prior to commencement of development and to be used towards infrastructure costs.

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 obligation/s 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 report before Members detailed two planning applications which were intrinsically linked and as such had been jointly assessed.  The first of these applications was the proposed temporary use of the existing Ahern Compound area, off Gerpins Lane, to treat suitable inert materials for use within the restoration of the adjoining Pinch site (application ref: P1601.15).

The second application was the proposed restoration of the Pinch site to a managed woodland and grassland area, with recreational and amenity after use, achieved through the importation and spreading of suitable inert materials (application ref: P1605.15).

With its agreement Councillor David Durant addressed the Committee.

Councillor Durant commented that the proposal would involve a processing plant and therefore should be refused on the grounds of its impact on the Green Belt. Councillor Durant also commented that the lorry routing proposed was using already congested and damaged roadways.

During a brief debate Members discussed the issues of removing the forestry in the area and sought and received clarification of the boundary shared with the Gerpins Lane Civic Amenity Site.

Members also questioned the possible ownership of the site and how lorry routing would impact on the A1306.

It was RESOLVED that consideration of both applications be deferred to allow officers to clarify the following:

·         To what extent was the ownership of this and adjacent land holdings material to consideration of waste related operations and their impact on the locality.

·         Would the financial contribution for highways be in general or for smaller local roads rather than say the A1306?

·         Update on which other operators were, or due to be, using A1306 for such lorry based activities.

·         Concerns that the routing involved two way lorry passing, eroding rural verges/ hedgerows and creating potholes, detrimental to highway safety and local character.

The Committee noted that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £17,900 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 £60,000 to be used for educational 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.

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

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 1.

Councillor Nunn 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.