Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 October 2012 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2012 were agreed as a correct record (subject to the inclusion of the names of Councillors Wendy Brice-Thompson and Frederick Thompson as substitute members and of Councillor Steven Kelly as also attending), and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Sandra Binion declared a non-pecuniary interest in application P0976.12 (minute 114 following). Councillor Binion informed the Committee that she knew the applicant and regarded the interest to be prejudicial to her ability to consider the application.

The report before members detailed an application for a two storey, hipped roof, semi-detached house with a garage to the rear with one off-street parking space available to the front of the garage.

The application was deferred from the Regulatory Services Committee meeting on 15 November 2012 to allow members to visit the application site.

Committee members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Michael Armstrong on the grounds of the impact on the streetscene, size and mass.

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

With its agreement, Councillor Michael Armstrong addressed the Committee. Councillor Armstrong commented that he had called the application in on the grounds of width, bulk and mass. Councillor Armstrong explained that he felt the proposed extension to be visually intrusive on the streetscene and would have a detrimental impact on the current residents of Greenock Close. Councillor Armstrong asked that the Committee reject the scheme for the above reasons.

During the debate members discussed the possible visual intrusion the proposed extension would have on the streetscene and also discussed comparable schemes that had been approved elsewhere in the borough.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted, however following a motion to refuse, it was proposed that planning be refused on the grounds of visual intrusion on the streetscene, overdevelopment and impact on neighbouring properties.

The vote for the motion to refuse planning permission was lost by 4 votes to 4 with the Chairman exercising his casting vote. Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, Misir and Brice-Thompson voted for the motion to refuse planning permission. Councillor Oddy, Thompson, Tebbutt and Brace voted against the motion to refuse planning permission.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was lost by 4 votes to 3 with 1 abstention. Councillors Oddy, Tebbutt and Brace voted for the resolution to grant planning permission. Councillors Brice-Thompson, Misir, Hawthorn and Ower voted against the resolution to grant planning permission. Councillor Thompson abstained from voting. There was, accordingly, no decision upon the application.

The Chairman indicated that, in view of the lack of agreement upon it, the matter would be brought back to the next appropriate meeting of the Committee for further consideration and debate.

As stated at the beginning of the minutes and in accordance with her disclosure of interest, Councillor Sandra Binion left the meeting during the discussion and took no part in the voting.

The report before members detailed a planning application for the creation of a curtilage and garden area for an existing bungalow. The existing bungalow did not enjoy the benefit of a valid planning permission as the foundation for the bungalow were laid slightly outside the time-limits applicable under the original outline planning permission and subsequent approval of reserved matters. An application for a certificate of lawfulness had been submitted for the bungalow together with this application in order to tie the residential curtilage to the bungalow.

During the discussion members clarified the details of the residential curtilage and discussed the possibility of including a landscaping condition.

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

The vote for the resolution was carried by 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention. Councillor Brace abstained from voting.

Following a brief debate it was RESOLVED that the matter be deferred to allow Committee members to visit the site.

The application before members sought permission for the demolition of an existing chalet bungalow and garage and the construction of a replacement detached dwelling and the erection of front and side boundary walls.

It was noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Barry Tebbutt on the grounds that there had previously been discussions by the Committee about properties that were large in bulk and mass, whereby the preferred siting was a corner plot. Also, a building which had a large mass and bulk was visually less obtrusive as a corner plot. The donor property was granted planning permission for extensions that were extensively the same footprint as the new property. A discussion was required as to whether the mass, height and bulk as a corner plot in the street scene was acceptable.

During the debate members discussed the high build quality of the proposed dwelling and noted that there had been several letters of support for the development.

Members noted that a Mayoral CIL contribution of £3,973.20 was liable for the proposed development.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused, however following a motion to grant planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the inclusion of planning conditions. The Committee delegated authority to the Head of Development and Building Control to include appropriate planning conditions, including conditions relating to removal of permitted development rights (extension and roof alterations only), boundary treatment, secure by design, landscaping, hours of construction, visibility splays plus other visuals.

The report before members detailed an application for the erection of a visitor and education centre in Hornchurch Country Park, on land off Squadrons Approach. The application was brought to the Committee as the application site was on Council owned land.

Members noted that 1 late letter of representation had been received.

It was also noted that the Council’s Environmental Health team were recommending a minor change to the wording of the contamination condition.

During a brief debate members discussed the possibility of installing lighting along the entrance road to the centre. Officers advised that the limited budget available to fund the development would not be able to fund the long run of lighting that would be needed.

It was noted that the proposal may be liable for the Mayor of London Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Based upon the information supplied with the application, the CIL payable would be approximately £8,200.00, unless an exemption was granted.

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

Members noted that a Mayoral CIL contribution of £27,800 was liable for the proposed development 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 £54,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs in accordance with the Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

• 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 to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the agreement is completed;

• The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

The Committee delegated to the Head of Development and Building Control authority to grant planning permission subject to the completion of the above legal agreement, and planning conditions as set out in the report.