Agenda item

The application before members sought planning permission for the conversion of an existing detached garage to provide annex accommodation for family members.  A Legal Agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was required to place an occupation restriction on the annex for use by family members.

Members noted that a letter of objection had been received from Councillor Andrew Curtin.

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

With its agreement, Councillor Michael Armstrong addressed the Committee. Councillor Armstrong commented that he agreed with the Council’s Heritage officer that the change of use of the garage to annex accommodation was inappropriate and could set a harmful precedent. Councillor Armstrong asked that the Committee reject the application on the basis that approving the application would harm the conservation area.

During the debate members discussed the planning history of the site and the possible increase in traffic movements.

Members sought clarification that under the proposed Section 106 Agreement the annex could not be sold separately of the main residence.

Members sought clarification on whether restrictions could be put in place to prevent the laying of hard-surfacing in the garden area between the main dwelling and the annex. Members were informed that such restrictions may have been covered by an Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights.

It was RESOLVED that subject to:

• there being a prevailing Article 4 direction dealing with control over any future hard-surfacing of the garden area between the main house and garage; and

• subject to the legal agreement incorporating a further restriction that the annex is not to be sold separately from the main dwelling

The Committee delegate to the Head of Development and Building Control authority to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and planning conditions. In the event that Article 4 provisions do not provide sufficient control over hard-surfacing, the application would be remitted back to Regulatory Services Committee for its further consideration and resolution.

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:

·        The owners / developers covenants that the occupation of the proposed development shall be restricted to relatives of the owners of the land comprising 3 Heath Close, Gidea Park, Romford;

·        The owners / developers covenants that the proposed development shall not be leased or alienated separately from the land comprising 3 Heath Close, Gidea Park, Romford; 

• The owners / developers as appropriate 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 the completion of the agreement;

• 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.

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 set out in the report but also to consider provided that prevailing Article 4 direction control over any future hardsurfacing of the garden area between the main house and garage; and subject to the legal agreement incorporating a further restriction that the annex is not to be sold separately from the main dwelling.  In the event that Article 4 provisions do not provide such control over hardsurfacing, the application would be brought back to Committee for determination.

As stated at the beginning of the minutes, Councillor Jeff Brace declared a prejudicial interest in the application. Councillor Brace informed the Committee that he knew the applicant. Councillor Brace left the room during the discussion and took no part in the voting.