Agenda and minutes

Councillor Barry Tebbutt declared a prejudicial interest in application P1079.11. Councillor Tebbutt informed that he was a joint owner of the property. Councillor Tebbutt left the room during the discussion and took no part in the voting on that item.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 March 2012 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Applications within statutory period.

Member considered a report that sought permission for change of use of land to an Outdoor Activity Centre. The report detailed that the outdoor activity centre was to include a quad bike dirt track, a smaller quad bike track for children, a mini golf course, and an adventure playground. The proposal would involve engineering operations resulting in the creation of three ponds and mounding at various points along the quad bike tracks, changes to ground levels would also occur within the mini golf course. The proposal also involve the siting of several prefabricated, portable buildings including two storage buildings, a changing room and office building, the erection of various structures within the playground, the siting of a kiosk associated with the putting greens, and the erection of post and rail fencing throughout the site to separate the various activities being proposed.

The main issues in this application are considered to be the principle of development, the impact upon the character of the area, impact upon neighbouring occupiers, Highway and access arrangements, and other considerations. The committee was addressed by a member of the public objecting to the application with a response on behalf of the applicant.

With its agreement, Councillor Gillian Ford addressed the Committee. Councillor Ford commented and requested the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds of Green Belt impact, concerns over noise impacts, increased traffic, and lack of parking facilities. In reply the applicant stated that the application was to enhance the site and provide out door activity. That the venue was to be operational at weekends.

During the debate, members discussed the issue of parking facilities, environmental impact, noise pollution. A Member was of the view that this was an inappropriate development in this area.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

Member considered a report that sought permission for alterations to the existing barn to provide an office and a two bedroom residential unit for a site manager. The application included conversion of part of the ground floor and first floor of the existing barn for organic farm use. A legal agreement was required to place an occupation restriction in respect of the barn conversion for the site manager.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted with 9 votes for and 2 votes against (Councillors Hawthorn and Ower voted against the resolution to grant planning permission) which raises a requirement to pay a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy of £2,280.00 and subject to prior completion of Section 106 agreement on term set out below and planning conditions as set out in the report:-

that the proposal is unacceptable as it stands 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:

·        The occupation of the two bedroom unit by the site manager only in connection with the use of the land at Youngs Organic Farm as an organic farm.

·        The proposed conversion to provide an office and 2-bed residential units not to be leased or alienated separately from the property and land comprising Youngs Organic Farm

·        The Council’s reasonable legal fees for preparation of the legal agreement irrespective of whether or not that agreement is completed.

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 prior completion of a unilateral undertaking under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:-

·        The owner/s (developer/s) of the application site covenanting not to implement further Unit 3 of the third pavilion approved under P0196.09 and the variation of conditions application - P0565.10

·        As appropriate to bear the Council’s reasonable legal costs incurred in considering the form of the Unilateral Undertaking.

And the conditions as set out in the report with changes to the following conditions:-

Condition 2 (Landscaping):  To carry out in accordance with submitted details.

Condition 5 (Waste Management): Adjust to cover possible future A3 use.

Condition 7 (Noise): delete reference to PPG24.

Condition 10 (opening hours): now to be 0730 - 2200

Members considered a report that was brought before committee as the applicant is a Councillor. The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the erection of 1 No. single storey dwelling.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and the prior completion of a section 106 agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the basis set out below:-

that the proposal is unacceptable as it stands 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:

·        The revocation of planning permission P0404.11 without compensation on the issue of planning permission pursuant to planning application reference P1079.11.

·        To pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement irrespective of whether the legal agreement is completed.

As stated at the beginning of the minutes, Councillor Barry Tebbutt declared a prejudicial interest in this application. Councillor Tebbutt informed that he is a joint owner of the property. Councillor Tebbutt left the room during the discussion and took no part in the voting on that item.

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED that subject to the expiration of the consultation period on 27 April 2012 and any consultation responses received up to that date raising no new material considerations other than those already considered by Committee that the Committee delegate to the Head of Development and Building Control authority to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.  If new material considerations are raised, then the matter shall be remitted back to Regulatory Services Committee for its further consideration and resolution.

Applications outside statutory period

The report before the Committee sought permission to erect a new illuminated signage identifying the new retail premises. The report detailed the following specification:

- 1 x illuminated flush mounted fascia sign (9.0m x 0.80m)

- 1 x projecting sign at fascia level, (0.8m x 0.5m)

The sign letters would be internally illuminated with lux levels proposed at 150cd/sq metre.

The application site was located within the retail core area of Romford Town Centre on the western side of South Street directly opposite the junction with Western Road.

With its agreement, Councillor Andrew Curtin addressed the Committee requesting the application be refused. Councillor Curtin stated that the matter before the Committee did the not represent best practice in relation to visual appearance of the streetscape.

During the debate, Members discussed the issue of visual appearance of the streetscape and commented on the approach and practise.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was passed by 7 votes to 3 and 1 abstention. Councillors Hawthorn, Osborne and Ower voted against the resolution to grant planning permission whilst Councillor Tebbutt abstained from voting.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions 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 with a minor amendment to Condition 2 requiring the submission of materials deleting the words” to match” and replacing with a requirement to submit materials for approval.

The report before Members detailed a resubmission application following planning permission for two dwellings houses to the rear of 1-6 New Road, Rainham in August 2011 for the conversion of the former police station/houses to three semi-detached dwellings.

The current planning application proposed the erection of a pair of two storey, pitch-roofed, semi-detached dwellings with accommodation in the roof space, which would include dormers to the front and rear in each case along with roof lights.

A Member had called in the application on the grounds that it is an overdevelopment of the application site which may give rise to overlooking and not enough amenity space.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report with an additional condition requiring the installation of a sprinkler system. In addition there is a requirement to make a contribution of £4.080.00 toward the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy

The voting was 10 to 1 against. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The report before the Committee sought permission for the installation of a new Automated Teller Machine (ATM) and surround within the new shopfront. The ATM surround will measure 0.86m x 1.57m. The application site was located within the retail core area of Romford Town Centre on the western side of South Street directly opposite the junction with Western Road.

With its agreement, Councillor Andrew Curtin addressed the Committee requesting the application be refused. Councillor Curtin had requested that the matter be determined at Committee as it was considered that the application does not represent best practice in relation to visual appearance of the streetscape.

During the debate, Members discussed the issue of visual appearance of the streetscape and best practise.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was passed by 8 votes to 1 and 2 abstention. Councillors Osborne voted against the resolution to grant planning permission whilst Councillor Hawthorn and Barry Tebbutt abstained from voting.

The application before the Committee sought full planning permission to undertake changes to the existing facade at ground floor level, and also minor changes at the rear of the store. On the South Street frontage the existing deep recessed doorway had been removed and a new automatic opening bi-parting slide door entrance installed. The frame to the doors would be recessed (approx 0.5m) behind the existing column, leaving this exposed to the streetscape. An internal roller shutter was also proposed.

With its agreement, Councillor Andrew Curtin addressed the Committee requesting the application be refused. Councillor Curtin had requested that the matter be determined at Committee as it was considered that the application was a poor design of a shop front, not taking account of best practice in relation to visual appeal of the streetscene.

During the debate, Members discussed the issue of visual appearance of the streetscape and best practise in relation to visual appeal.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was passed by 6 votes to 5 against. Councillors Hawthorn, Osborne, Ower, McGreary and Tebbutt voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

The Committee considered the report and without debate, RESOLVED that subject to the developer paying the Council’s reasonable charges in respect of the making, advertising, any inquiry costs and confirming the stopping up order pursuant to Regulation 5 of The London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000 that:-

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 areas of adopted highway shown zebra hatched on the attached Plan as the land is required to enable development for which the Council has granted the Planning Permission.

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

3.      In the event that relevant objections were made by 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.

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