Venue: Meeting to be held virtually
Contact: John Dawe, Senior Governance Officer
Declaration of Members' Interests
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Members are asked to declare any interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes of the meetings held on 22 and 25 March 2021 were confirmed as correct.
The Principal Development Management Officer (PDMO), Be First Development Management Team introduced a report on an application seeking a planning permission at Chadwell Heath Baptist Church and adjacent land at 76 High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford. The proposal sought to retain the Church's façade, demolish remaining premises and construction of a new church building with associated Community uses and 17 residential units (Use Class C3) comprising buildings of 2-4 storeys.
In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 534 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory press notice. A total of four objections were received, two of which were included in a supplementary report, the full material planning considerations relating to which were set out in the planning assessment detailed both in the committee report and the subsequent supplementary report, the latter of which included a response to concerns expressed over the consultation process in relation to properties in Eric Road.
A local ward councillor spoke on behalf of the three Whalebone councillors in full support of the development, citing the vital role played by the Baptist Church in providing services to vulnerable residents and the wider community. They referred to comments previously expressed about the scale of the development, housing mix and car parking, and placed on record their appreciation of the positive approach taken by the Church to adapt their scheme to address the concerns of both ward members and the local community. That said the ward councillors would continue to work closely with the Church and the community to resolve any future issues that may arise.
Two registered speakers opposing the application addressed the Committee. In summary their concerns were:
- The development would impact on their privacy and quality of life insofar as it would overlook both adjoining properties and gardens in Eric Road.
- The scale, density and layout of the development was inappropriate for the surrounding area.
- Lack of consultation, and particular concerns about the validity of the statutory consultation seeing that properties in Eric Road did not appear to receive either the notification letter issued by Be First, nor a leaflet about the proposals circulated by the Church.
The PDMO maintained that the local Planning Authority’s statutory duties had been fulfilled through the 534 letters sent out to surrounding properties together with the requisite press advert dated 23September 2020, a copy of which was set out in the supplementary report, which also included the list of the of neighbouring properties consulted on Eric Road.
- Lack of available parking.
- The development would result in more people living in the area, creating additional demands and congestion, coupled with the fact that there was already little available green space and play areas for local children.
The applicant stated that they had considered the possibility of creating a play space at the expense of an element of the housing provision but had concluded that financially it was not viable for the overall development and that that ... view the full minutes text for item 58.
The PMDO, Be First introduced a report on an application seeking a planning permission for the construction of a five-storey building comprising community use at ground floor level (Use Class F1) (327sqm) plus 50 residential flats (22 x 1-bed, 20 x 2-bed and 8 x 3-bed) and associated access, ground level parking and landscaping on the site of the former Thames View Clinic, Bastable Avenue, Barking.
In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 177 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory press notice. A total of three representations were received, two of which were in support of the development and one sought confirmation of the location. Details of the full material planning considerations relating to the consultations were set out in the planning assessment detailed in the report.
A number of questions arose from consideration of the application which were addressed by the officer and the applicant concerning the parking arrangements for servicing the site, the future traffic arrangements for Samuel Ferguson Way, which would remain one way, and the provision of nearby play facilities and use of the community space. Both were seen as integral to the development and which would form part of the Section 106 Agreement, progress updates on which would as requested be provided to the Thames ward councillors.
In conclusion the redevelopment of the site for new and improved community space within Class F1 and residential use was considered by officers to be acceptable in principle and would contribute to the Borough’s housing stock through the provision of 50 good quality units, of which 39% would be affordable, meeting an identifiable need in the Borough.
The scale, siting and design of the development was considered appropriate to the site’s context and would result in a high-quality finish, whilst respecting the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The proposed landscaping strategy would positively contribute to the appearance and public realm of the area and enhance the arboricultural, biodiversity and environmental value of the site.
The development adopted a sustainable approach to transport whilst ensuring an acceptable impact on local highways and infrastructure. The proposal was also considered acceptable in terms of sustainability and air quality, with a financial contribution secured to mitigate any shortfall in carbon reduction.
Accordingly, the Committee RESOLVED to:
1. Agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report,
2. Delegate authority to the Director of Inclusive Growth
(or authorised Planning Officer), in consultation with the Director of Law
and Governance to grant planning permission subject to the completion of
a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended) based on the Heads of Terms identified at
Appendix 6 and the Conditions listed in Appendix 5 of the report, and
3. That, if by 26 October 2021 the Unilateral Undertaking has not been
completed, the Director of Inclusive Growth (or other authorised Planning
Officer), in consultation with the Director of Law and Governance, be
Delegated authority to ... view the full minutes text for item 59.
The Development Management Officer (DMO), Be First Development Management Team introduced a report on an application seeking a planning permission for the redevelopment of the site at 34-42 East Street, Barking, to provide a 5-9 storey building comprising up to 65 residential units (Use Class C3) with retail units (Use Class E) at ground and part first floors, with associated landscaping and highway works. It was noted that the application was a resubmission of a previous application which was refused in February 2020 on the grounds set out in the report.
In addition to internal and external consultations, a total of 1537 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties together with the requisite statutory press notice. A total of five objections were received, two of which were detailed in previously circulated supplementary reports, which also included an additional consultation response from the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS), as well as additional submission documents presented by the applicant.
The full material planning considerations relating to the above were set out in the planning assessment detailed both in the committee report and the supplementary reports. This had resulted in an officer recommendation for refusal for reasons as detailed and presented at the meeting. This also included an officer assessment of the changes between the previously refused scheme and the current application.
In conclusion the officer reiterated that the current application related to a residential-led redevelopment of a key town centre site that was part of an emerging allocation in the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19). The principle of development had been accepted and it was acknowledged that progress had been made since the refusal of planning application 19/00770/FUL, which had enabled the removal of five previous reasons for refusal. However, there remained a number of areas of concern that had not been resolved through the resubmission of the current application, and as such three reasons for refusal were retained.
Given the planning principle that each application should be considered on its merits and as there were currently no other plans for the site, clarification was sought as to the validity of citing the committee report which stated that the proposal was not making best use of land. The DMO confirmed that this was in specific reference to policies in the now adopted London Plan which required a holistic design led approach to schemes and that consequently the applicant had failed to demonstrate how this application would work/complement future adjacent developments as part of the emerging site allocation.
One registered speaker opposing the application addressed the Committee. In summary their concerns focussed on the impact of the proposed development on their quality of life in their adjoining property, through a combination of a significant reduction in natural light and a loss of privacy. It would also in their opinion reduce the sunlight to the Town Square, a popular play space for families and young children.
In response to the officer assessment and reasons for refusal the applicant and their representatives outlined what ... view the full minutes text for item 60.
The attached report details the findings from the evaluation of a random sample of delegated planning decisions discussed at the Planning Performance and Review Sub-Committee on 16 February 2021, and which is presented for the Committee’s information.
The Committee noted a report from Be First detailing the findings from the evaluation of a random sample of delegated planning decisions as discussed at the Planning Performance and Review Sub-Committee on 16 February 2021 as presented at the last meeting (minute 43 refers).
The Committee placed on record its thanks to the Planning Officers from Be First and the Council for the overall performance in relation to the timely determination of planning applications in the context of the Key National Performance Indicators published by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.