Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 12 May and 2 June 2016 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 12 May and 2 June 2016 were agreed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

The proposal before Members was for the outline planning permission for two buildings to provide 13 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom apartments, 4 two bedroom houses and 12 three bedroom houses. The proposal also included associated amenity space and car parking.

The application was brought before the Committee as the application site was Council owned.

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

The objector commented that due to other developments in the area there was now inadequate amenity space for residents to use. The objector also commented that the proposal would create too many dwellings in the area and lead to privacy issues on neighbouring properties. The objector concluded by commenting that trees in the area were natural habitats for bats.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the application had been submitted by the Council to help combat the increasing housing need in the borough. At present there 1,040 people waiting for 2 bedroom properties and 540 waiting for three bedroom properties. The agent concluded by commenting that playing area would be retained and consultation would take place with existing residents to decide on what amenity/play space they would like to see there in the future.

With its agreement Councillors Michael Deon Burton and David Durant addressed the Committee.

Councillor Deon Burton commented that the access and egress arrangements for the proposal were of a cramped nature and emergency vehicles would struggle to enter and leave the site. Councillor Deon Burton also commented regarding parking deficiencies in the area. Councillor Deon Burton also commented about the privacy aspect of the proposal and whether overlooking would take place. Councillor Deon Burton also commented that if there was evidence of bats in the area then it would be unsafe to continue with the works until evidence was provided of how the habitats would be managed. Councillor Deon Burton concluded by commenting on the separate proposal to demolish Napier and New Plymouth Houses and the proposal to replace them with more densely residential properties which would remove much of the green space that was currently there.

Councillor Durant commented that the Council had a dual role in building new houses and protecting existing green spaces. The area that the application was proposed for included high value green space which was considered locally as a village green. Councillor Durant also commented on the proposed re-development on the site of the former Napier and New Plymouth Houses site which would see higher density housing that would have an impact on local services and amenity. Councillor Durant concluded by commenting that the proposal before Members was a zealous over development bearing in mind what was already planned for the neighbouring area.

During the debate Members discussed the levels of house building within the borough and the green nature of the open space which softened the landscape of the area.

Members also discussed the character of the existing neighbouring properties which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The application before Members sought planning permission for the demolition of the former Mecca Bingo hall at 31High Street Hornchurch.

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

The objector commented that she had started the social media campaign last year to save the Towers building. The objector also commented that local residents wanted the building to be kept as a facility for local residents to use for watching films, playing bingo and for other social events.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that he was the Property Manager for Lidl Ltd whose main role was to identify sites for the supermarket to move into. The agent also confirmed that the building was not listed and the site was not in a conservation area.

During a brief debate Members sought and received clarification regarding the Article 4 direction.

Members commented that the application was similar to schemes where former public houses were converted to residential properties. The driver in both was whether the former properties were commercially driven or were commercially dormant.

Members also discussed whether the local community would be able to fund and run a community asset in view of the fact that the previous corporate household known name had failed to operate at a profit.

Members also commented that there were concerns that the site, if not developed, would sit empty for a number of years.

Members also discussed the merits of deferring consideration of the report to allow the applicant to report back to the Committee confirming whether they would consider converting the existing building.

It was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to allow staff to explore with applicant the potential to adjust the demolition proposal in particular scope to retain the front façade.

The application before Members sought planning permission for a proposed single storey stand-alone building consisting of seven classrooms, a multi-purpose room, toilet block with circulation space, single storey flat roof extension to kitchen, the relocation of existing storage shed and the formation of a new tarmac playground area.

The matter was brought before the Committee as the application site was Council owned.

With its agreement Councillor David Durant addressed the Committee.

Councillor Durant commented that the application was almost identical to a previously refused application. Councillor Durant also commented that the school would be in the future subject to a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) scheme to assist the Council in dealing with parking problems outside of the school.

Councillor Durant also commented that The Head Teacher of Chafford School was happy to allow the Brady School to expand onto its land.

Councillor Durant concluded by commenting that Parsonage Farm School had already expanded from two forms of entry to three and urged the Committee to refuse the granting of planning permission.

During the debate Members discussed the proposed catering facilities that were included within the report.

Members also discussed possible crossing facilities that would be provided at the site’s entrance and whether the proposed expansion of the school was a step too far.

Members also discussed the advantages of deferring consideration of the report until later in the year when the initial findings of the PSPO scheme were known.

Members also discussed the benefits of a possible drop off zone on the site.

Following a motion to defer consideration of the report which was carried by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention It was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to allow officers to clarify the following:

·         Crossing arrangements for children crossing towards the school and in broader vicinity including Upminster Road North and A1306.

·         Why wasn’t a drop off layby an option (formed by eating into site curtilage along Allen Road)?

·         Whether dining/kitchen arrangements were a material planning consideration and in any event, for info, what separate rules govern this (capacity and shift arrangements for meal times) and did the scheme comply?  Members especially wanted to understand the impact on children's ability to eat meals properly with sufficient accommodation and without having to rush down their food before the next "sitting".

The vote for the resolution to defer consideration of the report was carried by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention.

Councillor Kelly voted against the resolution to defer consideration of the report.

Councillor White abstained from voting.

The report before Members detailed an application to vary condition 4 of application P0172.15. Application P0172.15 had previously sought permission for the construction of an attached property to 72 Rainsford Way which was approved, subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards education and conditions. Condition 4 of the consent related to the arrangement of parking for the existing/proposed dwellings and read as follows.

Before the building(s) hereby permitted was first occupied, the area set aside for car parking as shown on drawing no. SP15012-BB shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and retained permanently thereafter for the accommodation of vehicles visiting the site and should not be used for any other purpose. This included the relocation of the telegraph pole as identified on the drawings submitted.                                     

Reason: To ensure that car parking accommodation was made permanently available to the standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority in the interest of highway safety, and that the development accorded with the Development Control Policies Development Plan Document Policy DC33.

The application sought to vary the wording of this condition to remove reference to the relocation of the telegraph pole. Plans had been submitted which demonstrated four parking spaces over both properties, existing and proposed and swept path analyses for each.

The Committee noted that Councillor Ganly had called-in the application on the grounds the impact that the proposed development would have on the residents of Rainsford Way.

Councillor Ganly highlighted that the parent application, P0172.15 was approved with the provision of two spaces per dwelling. It was considered that by not relocating the telegraph pole that the proposed dwelling would only benefit from one parking space. It was therefore likely that an additional car would park across the driveway and create an obstruction for residents with driveways/garages opposite the site.

Concern was also raised by Councillor Ganly over the achievability of vehicles to manoeuvre on/off the site with the telegraph pole in situ in such proximity to the adjacent school entrance

With its agreement Councillor Jody Ganly addressed the Committee.

Councillor Ganly commented that the proposed development bordered onto Wykeham Primary School and that she had been involved in several meetings with the school and residents of Rainsford Way. Councillor Ganly also commented that Wykeham School already suffered horrendously for parking issues and the school was soon to be the subject of a PSPO scheme.

During the debate Members discussed the close proximity of the development to the school and the possible detriment if condition 4 was removed.

The report recommended that planning permission be approved however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 11 votes to 0 it was RESOLVED that the granting of planning permission be refused on the grounds:

·         The retained telegraph pole would constrain vehicle movements and distract drivers using the forecourt space and be harmful to pedestrian safety.

The application before Members proposed the installation of a 14m high monopole, accommodating six antennas and two transmission dishes; four equipment cabinets and one meter cabinet and ancillary development within a compound surrounded by a 1.8m high palisade fence.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Ray Morgon on the grounds that he wished the matter to be discussed by the Committee and to judge the application on its merits.

With its agreement Councillor Ray Morgon addressed the Committee.

Councillor Morgon commented that there had been a temporary mast in situ in Hacton Lane, whilst the operator had been investigating other possible sites, which was noisy and had been the subject of several complaints from residents. Councillor Morgon also commented that the operators had struggled to find an alternative site and that the one proposed in the application which would have little impact on neighbouring properties.

During a brief debate Members discussed the access arrangements to the site so that maintenance could be carried out and possible landscaping enhancements.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried by 9 votes to 1 with I abstention it was RESOLVED that planning permission, subject to prior approval, be granted subject to the provision of good quality landscaping around the mast.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 1 with I abstention.

Councillor Whitney voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.

Councillor Mugglestone abstained from voting.

The report before Members proposed alterations to the existing Aldi car park layout and the provision of additional car parking on the adjacent Green Belt land to serve the existing food store, together with the re-instatement of the former community allotment on the remainder of the Green Belt land. The proposal would also involve associated landscaping and works.

The Committee noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Jason Frost on the grounds that having worked very closely with the developer to ensure the maximum benefit for the residents of the area, he felt that not enough consideration had been duly given to such efforts and wanted the Committee to take a view on this.

With its agreement Councillor Jason Frost addressed the Committee.

Councillor Frost commented that the applicant had been in discussions with all three ward Councillors. Councillor Frost commented that what was being proposed would improve traffic flow around the site and that the current Green Belt land offered very little to the area as it was just scrubland and that the proposal would enhance the land.

During a brief debate Members discussed the current condition of the land, the possible benefits of granting the planning permission and future maintenance of the site.

Following a motion to defer consideration of the report which was carried by votes 11 to 0 it was RESOLVED to defer consideration of the report to allow officers to seek clarification of the precise very special circumstances case and whether this included management of the remainder of the land, for what purpose and to clarify whether this would include future maintenance in perpetuity.

The report before Members updated them on a previous planning application.

The application had been brought before the Committee on two previous occasions. The first occasion was on 3 December 2015, when Members resolved to defer the application to explore the parking implications further, including to negotiate a minimum of two parking spaces within the site, and to demonstrate the impact on existing on-street parking spaces.

The application was reported back to Committee on 28 January 2016. Members resolved to defer the application for a second time for further information about the relationship of the extension to the occupation of the building, the adequacy of car parking and the impact on neighbour's amenity. The applicants have subsequently decided to appeal against non- determination and Members were therefore asked to give a determination as to the Council's case at appeal.

The following two recommendations were included in the report.

Mindful that the applicant has lodged an appeal to the Secretary of State against non-determination within the statutory period, it is recommended :-

A: If the Committee judge the property to be operating as a C4 use: That the Council does not object to the proposal and the appeal not be contested, subject to the use of the condition set out below:

The extension hereby approved shall only be used as an integral part of the main dwelling at 24 Mungo Park Road and shall not be used as a self contained living accommodation.

Reason:

To ensure that the development provides a suitable standard of living accommodation.

Or,

B:If the Committee judge that a material change of use of the property has occurred: That the Council object to the proposal and contest the appeal, on the grounds that the proposal gives rise to a cramped, poor quality living environment that is detrimental to the amenities of residential occupiers, contrary to the provisions of Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and Policies DC4 and DC61 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

During a brief debate Members sought and received clarification on the exact nature of the different class uses and planning policies.

Members also received clarification of previous appeals that had been carried out by the Planning Inspectorate on similar properties.

A motion was put forward for recommendation B which was lost by 2 votes to 8 with 1 abstention.

It was RESOLVED that recommendation “A” be implemented.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 8 votes to 2 with 1 abstention.

Councillors Mugglestone and Whitney voted against the resolution.

Councillor Williamson 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 application before Members was seeking planning permission for the erection of a detached residential block containing seven one-bedroom flats and two three-bedroom maisonettes.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Steven Kelly on the grounds that he felt that the Committee should debate the proposal on the basis of community need and the ambience of the setting.

During the debate Members discussed the current streetscene and neighbouring properties to the site.

Members also discussed the positive nature of the development which would enhance the area and the nearby transport links.

It was also noted that the proposed properties were for housing association need and not private ownership.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried unanimously it was RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Regulatory Services to approve contrary to recommendation subject to the applicant agreeing to enter into a legal agreement to provide an education contribution and subject to planning conditions to be decided by the Head of Regulatory Services. In the event the applicant did not agree to the legal agreement then the application would be taken back to the Committee to determine.

The report before Members proposed the demolition of the existing building and erection of a two storey building to provide a cafe (Use Class A3) on the ground floor and residential accommodation (Use Class C3) on the first floor and in the roof space.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillors Melvin Wallace and Damian White for the following reasons:

Cllr Melvin Wallace had commented that local residents were in support of the application and wished for options to be discussed by Members of the Committee.

Cllr Damien White had commented that he was concerned that the proposed development would adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area and be out of keeping with the surrounding location.

Officers read a brief statement that had been submitted by Councillor Wallace who had been unable to attend the meeting. Councillor Wallace commented that the proposal would enhance the area and wished to place on record his support for granting planning permission.

During a brief debate Members discussed the possible benefits that the proposal would bring to the Station Road area as the current building was an eyesore.

Members also discussed the refuse arrangements for the site.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to grant planning permission which was carried unanimously it was RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Regulatory Services to approve subject to the applicant agreeing to enter into a legal agreement to secure an education contribution and restriction on occupiers' applying for parking permits plus planning conditions to be decided by the Head of Regulatory Services. In the event the applicant didn’t agree to a legal agreement then the application would be brought back to the Committee to determine.

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 the proposal was unacceptable as its 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 to secure the following:

• A scheme to improve pedestrian links along Ferry Lane or a commuted sum, agreed with the Local Planning Authority up to £150,000 in value, to undertake such improvements and/or improve public transport accessibility; and

• A local employment, skills and supply-chain opportunities framework or a commuted sum, agreed with the Local Planning Authority up to £100,000 in value, to provide alternative local employment initiatives if the applicant was unable to provide an appropriate level of opportunities on-site.

• All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums shall 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 was completed; and

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

Subject to no direction to the contrary from the Mayor for London (under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008) it was therefore recommended that the Head of Regulatory Services 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 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 subject to the developer paying the Council’s reasonable charges in respect of the making of, advertising of, any inquiry costs associated with and the confirmation of the Stopping Up Order pursuant to Regulation 5 of The London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000 that:-

            The Council made a Stopping Up Order under the provisions of s.247 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) in respect of the area of adopted highway shown zebra hatched on the Plan as the land was required to enable development for which the Council had granted the Planning Permission.

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

            In the event that relevant objections were made, 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.

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

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 of, advertising of, any inquiry costs associated with and the confirmation of the Stopping Up Order pursuant to Regulation 5 of The London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000 that:-

            The Council made a Stopping Up Order under the provisions of s.247 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) in respect of the area of adopted highway shown zebra hatched on the Plan as the land was required to enable development for which the Council had granted the Planning Permission.

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

            In the event that relevant objections were made, 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.

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

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 of, advertising of, any inquiry costs associated with and the confirmation of the Stopping Up Order pursuant to Regulation 5 of The London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000 that:-

            The Council made a Stopping Up Order under the provisions of s.247 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) in respect of the area of adopted highway shown zebra hatched on the Plan as the land was required to enable development for which the Council had granted the Planning Permission.

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

            In the event that relevant objections were made, 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.

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

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 2000-2016.

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 20 February 2016 and 27 May 2016.

The report detailed that 32 new appeals had been received since the last meeting of the Monitoring Committee in March 2016.

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

The Committee considered and noted the schedules detailing information regarding enforcement notices updated since the meeting held in March 2016.

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 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.

Members had previously been emailed a schedule which listed the complaints received by the Planning Control Service regarding alleged planning contraventions for the period 20 February 2016 to 3 June 2016.

The Committee NOTED the report and AGREED the actions of the Service.

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.