Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 16 May and 21 May 2013 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 16 May and 21 May 2013 were agreed as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a report that sought to remove condition 8 of application P1327.11 for a multi-use games area that was approved in 23 February 2012. Condition 8 required a screening scheme be submitted and agreed showing screening from the effects of glare to residential properties abutting the site. 

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector. The objector stated that the current scheme does not adequately protect him and other nearby resident, he suggested that the lamp post were too high. He was of the opinion that there were other options in the market for the applicant to consider.

During the debate members stated that from the layout of the facilities, the light column for the tennis court which was much nearer to the resident could be the cause for concern. The Committee was informed that the tennis courts did not have any conditions attached to its use.

It was RESOLVED to grant planning permission.

The report before members sought for a change of use from retail shop (A1) to a hot food takeaway (A5) and extract ducting. Councillor Thorpe had called in the application on the grounds of impact on residents amenities.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant. The objector speaking on behalf of his son who lived in a flat above the row of shops, he raised concern that the business would lead to an increase in unpleasant smell, noise pollution, pressure on resident parking, road safety and health implication. In response the applicant’s representative stated that the this application was for reduced hours and the business intended to introduce healthy eating options, and install a modest ducting

With its agreement Councillor Lynden Thorpe addressed the Committee. She raised concern that this premises being near to a school would not support the healthy eating arrangement in the borough due to the increase in child obesity and diabetes. It was also suggested that the takeaway business would also lead to an increase in vermin and litter.

During the debate members expressed concerns that the application would increase the pressure on parking in the area and the ducting would be out of place. Members also suggested that there was no shortage of takeaways in the area.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted, however following a motion to refuse planning permission by Councillor Ower seconded by Councillor Hawthorn, which was carried by 6 votes to 5 it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that hours of use/noise and disturbance would harm amenity; parking/traffic impact (both same as LBH reasons for refusal of P1758.06 on page 39 of the agenda) plus the obtrusive nature of the flue harmful to visual amenity..

The vote for the resolution was carried by 6 votes to 5 with two abstentions. Councillors Bennett, Brace, Kelly, Oddy and Tebbutt voted against the resolution to refuse.

Further to this application being considered and deferred at its meeting on 6 June 2013 for further information on the proposed access arrangement at Colchester Road. The application before members proposed the demolition of the existing fire-damaged building and the erection of a single-storey building to be used as a fast food restaurant, takeaway and drive-through (Use classes A3 and A5). The premises would be accessed from both Straight Road and Colchester Road. The widening of a footpath alongside Colchester Road would be achieved by means of a S278 agreement with Transport for London.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant. The main issues raised related to loss of trees, concern about the height of the sound and light barriers, environmental and pollution issues.

During the debate several members expressed concerns on matters on the acoustic barriers, landscaping arrangement, overlooking, highway issues including the access and egress arrangements for the site.

Following the debate it was RESOLVED thatauthority to grant planning permission be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services subject to the conditions as set out in the report and satisfactory negotiation of additional condition (set out below) the precise wording of which to be negotiated and settled by the Head of Regulatory Services:

·         Deliveries hours.

·         Scheme of site management (physical/operational) to prevent use of any part of site by public and their vehicles outside premises opening hours.

·         Restriction on activity within site outside opening hours (staff arrival, opening up/ closure etc).

·         Explore potential for acoustic fence to be raised in height from that proposed in agreement with neighbours.

Explore whether A12 'barrier' can be a height to deter pedestrians crossing as well as vehicle right hand entries to/from the site.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 7 votes to 3 and one abstention.

Councillors McGeary, Ower and Bennett voted against the resolution to grant planning permission whilst Councillor Tebbutt 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 and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The report before members detailed a resubmission following refusals in 2010 and 2011 for an attached two bedroom, two storey house with parking and amenity space.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused on the grounds of streetscene.

The application had been called in by Councillor Oddy to ensure consistency in decision. Councillor Oddy went on to detail various developments in the area that had been constructed out of the site line.

During the debate members considered other surrounding premises that had similar extensions to those proposed in this application and considered it acceptable.

A motion to approve planning permission was proposed which was carried by 9 votes to 1 against and one abstention, it was RESOLVED that approval be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to approve subject to prior completion of legal agreement (infrastructure tariff) and conditions covering: standard time condition, full accordance with approved plans; restrict permitted development; materials samples; construction method and hours.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 9 votes to 1 with one abstention. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission and Councillor McGeary abstained from voting.

Report attached

The Committee considered the report that detailed the proposed demolition of a single storey community hall and the erection of a four storey building comprising 58 residential units with 74 parking spaces and amenity space and without debate RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with Recommendation A and the conditions set out in the report and to delegate to the Head of Regulatory Services in respect of Recommendation B of the report discretion to refuse if appropriate and draft as appropriate the precise wording of the reasons for refusal.

Report attached

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

Report attached

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report. Based on advice provided by the Greater London Authority this application does not need to be referred to the Mayor for London

The vote was carried by 10 votes to 1. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Report attached

The application before the Committee proposed the construction of 4 one bed flats and 2 three bed houses.  The flats would be within a two storey building to be located at the southern end of the site, which would be linked via a single storey refuse/cycle store building, to the proposed two storey pair of semi-detached houses, which are to be located at the northern end of the site.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant. The objector raised concern with the proposed parking arrangement.

With its agreement Councillors Darvill and O’Flynn addressed the Committee. Both members stated that he had received complaints from local residents concerning the proposals, particularly around parking arrangement as it would encroach on their land. In addition other issues raised included overlooking, the removal of green spaces and the loss of parking provision.

During the debate a member commented that the site was very limited in amenity spaces, concerned about the loss of trees and overlooking aspect of the development. It was also mentioned that the proposed development would lead to the loss of amenity space. In order to avoid any risk of encroaching on land outside the control of the applicant a possible revised scheme was presented to members which would involve a redrawing of the red-line boundary of the application sight. The revised plans would require re-consultation.

Following a motion to refuse granting planning permission which was lost by 4 votes to 7, it was RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow the local residents be re-consulted on the revised parking plans and to be brought back to the next meeting.

The vote was carried by 6 votes to 5. Councillors Brace, Bennett, Evans, Oddy and Kelly voted against the resolution to defer the granting of planning permission.

Report attached

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

Report attached

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

Report attached

The report before Members refers to an unauthorised change of use of the land to the rear of the residential property for the purposes of residential use by the placement of 5 travellers caravans and associated vehicles.

The report informed the Committee that rural land at the rear of Sylvan Glade, Benskins Lane, Noak Hill which was within the Metropolitan Green Belt and did and does not benefit from residential or any other accepted use.

In 2012 the Planning Enforcement service received a complaint and following a visit confirmed unauthorised change of use of the land.

The report stated that the owner of the property did not live at the address and it had not been possible to contact him to discuss this matter.

It was RESOLVED that Enforcement Notices be issued and served to require, within 6 months:

1.           Cease the unauthorised use of the land, to the rear of the main residence, for residential purposes

2.           Remove all caravans, vehicles and equipment associated with the unauthorised residential use

In the event of noncompliance, and if deemed expedient, that proceedings be instituted under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

During the discussion of the reports the Committee RESOLVED to suspend Committee Procedure Rule 8 in order to complete the consideration of the remaining business of the agenda.