Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare any interests in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.  Members may still declare an interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

Councillor Sandra Binion declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item P1398.11. Councillor Binion advised that she was a member of the social club that formed part of the applicant’s site. Councillor Binion left the room during the discussion and took no part in the voting.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 November 2011, 1 December and 8 December 2011 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 17 November, 1 December and 8 December 2011 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The application before members sought full planning permission for a single storey rear extension to an existing vacant shop premises in order to increase the retail floor area.  The proposed extension would enable the premises to be occupied by a Tesco Express store. The application had previously been reported to the Committee on 17 November 2011 when Members resolved to defer the application for further information. On 19 December 2011, the Council was notified that the applicant had appealed against the non-determination of the application and therefore the Council needed to submit any case in the appeal by 30 January 2012.

Members noted that 33 letters of representation had been received.

With its agreement Councillor Steven Kelly addressed the Committee. Councillor Kelly commented that very few changes had been made to the re-submitted plans and issues of over shadowing still existed. It was also mentioned that the premises was situated on a main road linking Hornchurch with Romford and any increased use would be to the detriment of highway safety. Councillor Kelly suggested that the proposal was suited for a much bigger site and asked that the Committee reject the scheme for the above reasons.

During the debate, members discussed the parking provision at the site, location of air conditioning units, storage areas and opening times.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted; however, following a motion, it was RESOLVED that, had the non-determination appeal not been lodged, permission would have been refused because rear extension, by reason of excessive height, mass and length along the shared boundary, would have an unduly overbearing and oppressive effect on the outlook and rear garden environment of the neighbouring property harmful to residential amenity. In addition, In the event that the Planning Inspectorate were minded to allow the appeal then the Council should seek the following conditions to the planning permission granted

·               Servicing and delivery restricted to 10am to 4pm and 6pm to 9pm only.

·               Hours of retail operation 7am to 10pm only.

·               No air conditioning plant or similar equipment to be installed without prior consent in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

·               No open storage in yard area to rear of single storey extension.

The vote for the motion to refuse planning permission and the substantive vote to refuse planning permission were passed by 10 votes to nil with 1 abstention.  Councillor McGeary abstained from voting.

The report before members related to a Council owned garage court. The application proposed the redevelopment of the existing site to provide one 4 bedroom bungalow with associated parking and garden area.

Members noted that there had been no objection to the proposal from the Council’s StreetCare department.

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

The report before members related to a Council owned garage court. The application proposed the demolition of the existing four garages and the erection of a three storey extension comprising of three 2 bedroom self contained flats with associated amenity areas.

Members noted that two letters of representation had been received and that there had been an objection from the Council’s StreetCare department on the grounds of lack of parking.

With its agreement Councillors Keith Darvill and Denis O ‘Flynn addressed the Committee.

Councillor Darvill commented that the proposal would have a negative impact on the existing residents and would also impact on the amenity of new and existing residents. Councillor Darvill asked that the Committee refuse the application.

Councillor O’Flynn commented that the proposal would lead to increased parking on the surrounding pavements and affect the amenity of existing residents. Councillor O’Flynn asked that the Committee refuse the application.

During the debate members discussed the lack of parking and amenity space for residents of the proposed flats.

A motion to refuse the granting of planning permission was lost by 6 votes to 5. Councillors Oddy, Hawthorn, Ower, McGeary and Durant voted for the motion to refuse planning permission. Councillors Tebbutt, Binion, Brace, Misir, Eden and Pain voted against the motion.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report. The vote for the resolution was passed by 7 votes to four. Councillors Oddy, Tebbutt, Binion, Brace, Misir, Eden and Pain voted for the resolution to grant planning permission. Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, McGeary and Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The application before members related to a Council owned garage court. The application proposed the demolition of the existing 4 garages and the erection of a three storey extension comprising of three 2 bedroom self contained flats with associated amenity areas.

Members noted that four letters of representation had been received and an objection had been raised by the Council’s StreetCare department due to lack of provision of parking.

With its agreement, Councillors Darvill and O’Flynn addressed the Committee.

Councillor Darvill commented on the overlooking impact that the proposed property would have on neighbouring properties gardens.

Councillor O’Flynn commented that the demolition works to the garages could prove detrimental to the health of the elderly residents living nearby.

A motion to refuse the granting of planning permission was lost by 6 votes to 4. Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, McGeary and Durant voted for the motion to refuse planning permission. Councillors Oddy, Tebbutt, Binion, Eden, Misir and Pain voted against the motion.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report. The vote for the resolution was passed by 6 votes to 4. Councillors Oddy, Tebbutt, Binion, Eden, Misir and Pain voted for the resolution to grant planning permission. Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, McGeary and Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillor Brace did not take part in either of the votes as he had been absent from the room during the discussions.

At this point Councillor Eden left the meeting to attend a prior engagement.

The report before members sought planning permission for the construction of a detached two storey building with accommodation in the roof space, comprising nine 2 bedroom flats and garages to the rear of the site.

The Committee considered the report, noting that four letters of representation had been received and that English Heritage had added an additional archaeological condition to the report and without debate, RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include the extra archaeological condition.

The vote for the resolution was passed by 9 votes to 1. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The Committee considered the report and following Councillors’ questions on overlooking, width of the entrance and accessibility of a disabled parking bay opposite, RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention. Councillor McGeary abstained from voting.

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.

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, noting that an additional letter of representation had been received, and without debate, RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report. The vote for the resolution was passed by 9 votes to 1. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The Committee considered the report, and following confirmation from Councillor Tebbutt that the application had been called in by error and without debate, RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

As stated at the beginning of the minutes Councillor Sandra Binion declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item P1398.11. Councillor Binion advised that she was a member of the social club that formed part of the applicant’s site. Councillor Binion left the room during the discussion and took no part in the voting.