Agenda and minutes

Councillor Frederick Thompson declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 8 planning application P1528.13. Councillor Thompson advised that he had previously spoken against the scheme and had a pre-determined view.

Councillor Thompson left the room prior to the discussion of the item and took no part in the voting.

The Committee considered a report that updated Members on the position of legal agreements and planning obligations.  This related to approval of various types of application for planning permission decided by the Committee that could be subject to prior completion or a planning obligation.  This was obtained pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Acts.

The report also updated the position on legal agreements and planning obligations agreed by this Committee during the period 2000-2014.

The Committee NOTED the report and the information contained therein.

The report accompanied a schedule of appeals and a schedule of appeal decisions, received between 15 February 2014 and 6 June 2014.

The report detailed that 33 new appeals had been received since the last meeting of the Monitoring Committee in March 2014.

The Committee NOTED the report and the results of the appeal decisions received.

The Chairman wished to place on record the Committee’s thanks for the strong performance on enforcement cases and appeals that were shown within the report.

The Committee considered and noted the schedules detailing information regarding enforcement notices updated since the meeting held in March 2014.

Schedule A showed notices currently with the Secretary of State for the Environment (the Planning Inspectorate being the executive agency) awaiting appeal determination.

Schedule B showed current notices outstanding, awaiting service, compliance, etc. with up-dated information from staff on particular notices.

The Committee NOTED the information in the report.

The Chairman wished to place on record the Committee’s thanks for the strong performance on enforcement cases that were shown within the report.

The report updated the Committee on the progress and/or outcome of recent prosecutions undertaken on behalf of the Planning Service.

The Committee NOTED the report.

The proposal before members was for the demolition of the existing four retail units, with vacant office accommodation above, and the erection of an eight storey building with four (A1) retail units at ground floor level, and 28 flats above (24 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 1 bedroom units), occupying seven storeys. The eighth storey element comprised of a services block at the top of the building.

The application had been brought before the Committee at its meeting held on the 3 April 2014; the decision was deferred to allow additional information to be gathered. The queries/comments raised at the meeting, and the responses to them, were detailed in the report.

Members noted that the application had previously been called in by Councillor Robby Misir as it was considered that the scale of the application warranted a decision by the Committee.

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

The objector commented that the excessive bulk and massing of the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the Romford Conservation Area. It was stated that the development was against policy as it did not maintain, enhance or improve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The objector also commented that English Heritage had invested significant amounts of lottery funding into the area and that the proposed development, by way of its scale, would result in significant harm to the surrounding area including the setting of a nearby listed building.

In response the applicant commented that the proposed development would be acceptable to neighbouring properties; was of an exemplary design and would be constructed from high quality materials that would help it blend into the streetscene. The applicant also highlighted that there had been no objection to the proposed development from English Heritage; that the application sought to remove an unattractive building and replace it with a modern and secure building that would enhance the area and in particular the setting of the listed Church.

Members were informed that there had been a late e-mail from the applicant who had confirmed willingness to reduce the height of the proposed building and negotiate the terms of a legal agreement.

Following a brief debate it was RESOLVED that consideration of the report again be deferred to allow officers to contact the applicant and enter into negotiations over the building’s height and bulk and the terms of a legal agreement.

As mentioned previously in these minutes Councillor Frederick Thompson declared a prejudicial interest in planning application P1528.13. Councillor Thompson advised that he had previously spoken against the scheme and had a pre-determined view.

Councillor Thompson left the room prior to the discussion of the item and took no part in the voting.

The Committee considered the report noting that the proposed development was liable for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £5,556 and 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 £18,000 to be paid prior to commencement of development and to be used towards infrastructure costs.

·      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.

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

·      Payment of the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

That staff be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The proposal before members related to Langtons House, a Council owned, Grade II listed 18^th century house and public gardens located in Billet Lane, Hornchurch. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing stores, the existing garage to be converted into a café with external alterations, repairs and re-roofing to the Orangery, works to the existing bothies and new openings in the garden wall.

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

The objector commented that the proposed development would lead to an increase in noise levels, the introduction of cooking smells and an extractor fan would have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties.  The objector also queried whether the proposal would require a change of use of the existing car park, which was used by Council employees and for evening functions.

In response the applicant commented that the proposed café building was situated a significant distance from the nearest residential property. The applicant confirmed that the hours of operation of the café would be market driven and that the facility would be run by a third party who would pay a lease fee to the Council. The applicant also confirmed that car parking for staff would remain at the site.

During a brief debate members sought clarification of the exact points of the new entrances in the garden wall.

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 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

Councillor Dodin 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 report before members concerned an application for the demolition and replacement dwelling and two detached bungalows and single garage to the rear at 65 Lambs Lane South in Rainham.

During the debate members discussed the possible overdevelopment of the site and the access/egress arrangements for the site. Members received clarification from officers as to the width of the access road and storage facilities for refuse.

Following a motion to refuse planning permission which was lost by 3 votes to 7 with 1 abstention the Committee noted that the proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £4,362 and it was RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £12,000 towards the infrastructure costs arising from the development would be required to fulfil the requirements of the Planning Obligations SPD.

• 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 Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement is completed.

·         Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

That staff be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 6 votes to 2 with 3 abstentions.

Councillors Misir, Best, Crowder, Kelly, White and Dodin voted for the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Hawthorn and Ower voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillors Nunn, Martin and Williamson abstained from voting.

To consider whether the public should now be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present during those items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972; and, if it is decided to exclude the public on those grounds, the Committee to resolve accordingly on the motion of the Chairman.

Following the completion of normal business, the committee decided to exclude the public for the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that it was likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present during those items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. It was decided to exclude the public on those grounds, the Committee RESOLVED accordingly on the motion of the Chairman.

The report before the Committee compiled a schedule listing, by Ward, all the complaints received by the Planning Control Service over alleged planning contraventions for the period from 16 February 2014 and 6 June 2014.

The Committee NOTED the report and AGREED the actions being taken.