Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 September 2011 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 September 2011 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The report before members detailed an application which proposed the retention and refurbishment of the former Woolpack public house, together with the erection of a new residential building, ranging between 3 and 8 storeys high.

It was reported that the retained Woolpack would undergo a programme of renovation and restoration in order to bring it back into use.  The application proposed use of the ground floor for either retail, financial and professional services, or restaurant/café use, which fall within Classes A1, A2 and A3 of the Use Classes Order respectively.  The upper floors of the building would be converted to form 2 two bed and 2 bed flats.  A detailed specification of the proposed works was set out in a Heritage Statement which was detailed in the report.

The proposed new build would provide 70 residential units.  This would consist of 30 one bed units, 34 two bed units, 4 three bed units and 2 four bed units.  The development proposed 6 units of affordable rented housing, which would be the three and four bed units within the development.

The principal entrance to the building would be located at the foot of the eight storey section with additional, separate entrances to each of the three and four bed units along Angel Way.

It was explained that the development would have a single point of vehicular access from Angel Way, which leads to an internal, ground floor parking area of 24 spaces, including 7 disability spaces.   Refuse stores would be located within the ground floor of the building. At first floor level it was proposed to create a landscaped podium, which would serve as a communal amenity area for the development.  This would be effectively enclosed by the new building to the north and west and by the existing Salvation Army building to the east.  Additional planting and communal play facilities would also be provided.  The space would provide an amenity area for residents, in addition to proposed decked terraces to each of the upper levels of the development.

Staff informed the Committee that the application had been accompanied by a suite of supporting documents including a planning statement, heritage statement, viability appraisal, arboricultural study, bat survey, contamination desk stuffy, daylight/sunlight assessment, design and access statement, energy statement, flood risk assessment, noise assessment, sustainability  statement and transport assessment and travel plan.

It was noted that 2 letters of representation had been received along with comments from 8 statutory consultees.

With its agreement, Councillor Andrew Curtin addressed the Committee.  Councillor Curtin remarked that the proposal would be a positive contribution to the Romford Town Centre Conservation Area with the use of high quality materials and appropriate use of colour.  Councillor Curtin urged the Committee to support the officer recommendation and grant planning permission.

During the debate, a member suggested that there was insufficient parking provision for a development of such size.  Staff advised that the proposed parking provision was acceptable given the location in the Town Centre and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

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 and an additional condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation and maintenance of an external lighting scheme.

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 detailed an application for a change of use of a two bedroom ground floor flat from C3 (dwelling house) to B1 (office), a ramp and the removal of a portacabin and container store.

It was reported that the flat had been vacant since August 2008 and ceased to be housing accommodation. The flat would be used as office accommodation for the local tenant management organisation, DELTA, which would be of benefit to the residents of the Victoria House estate.  Since 2006, DELTA had operated from a portacabin on the DELTA estate which provided only limited and cramped office accommodation and did not have any meeting room facilities.

Members were informed that there would be five full time employees. Opening hours were proposed to be between 9am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday.

It was noted that the portacabin and container store had been removed from the site.

No letters of representation had been received.

With its agreement, Councillor Eric Munday addressed the Committee.  Councillor Munday commented that, if approved, there would be an unacceptable loss of residential accommodation.  Councillor Munday urged the Committee to refuse the application.

During the debate, members discussed the loss of residential accommodation and whether a change of use was appropriate.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted but following a motion, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of a residential unit.

The vote for the motion to refuse planning permission was passed by 9 votes to 1. Councillor Oddy voted against the motion.  The resolution to refuse planning permission was passed unanimously.

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, subject to the developer paying the Council’s reasonable charges in respect of the making, advertising, confirmation of the stopping up order pursuant to Regulation 5 of The London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000, that:-

1. The Council make 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 hatched black on the plan attached to the report as the land would be required to enable development for which the Council had granted planning permission granted under planning reference P0302.11 to be carried out.

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.

3. In the event that relevant objections were made by other than 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 can proceed to confirm the order.

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.

It was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred at the request of staff.

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

In February 2011, the Council granted planning permission for the construction of a 2 storey building to accommodate 8 flats with associated parking and landscaping.

The application before members was a resubmission of the approved scheme as the construction works had not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans.  The report explained that the footing had to be altered following the discovery of an old gasometer.  The pinch-point of the building had moved 800mm closer to the eastern boundary of the site.

The resubmission had been reported to the Committee on 4 October 2011 but consideration was deferred to provide the applicant with an opportunity to address overlooking concerns arising from the building’s position being closer to the common boundaries with 1-7 Hill Rise.

The applicant had since informed staff that the 1^st floor window closest to the eastern boundary would be moved further away from neighbouring properties and the internal layout of the 2^nd floor would be changed to address concerns around overlooking.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant.

It was 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 passed by 8 votes to 2. Councillors Ower and Hawthorn 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.