Agenda item

The DMO presented a retrospective planning application from David James (the applicant) for a change of use from a car sale to hand car wash at the site of 154 High Road, Chadwell Heath, Romford RM6 6NT. In accordance with the Scheme of Delegation this application was presented to the Planning Committee for decision as more than five objections were received.

A total of 117 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties from which 15 objections were received, the material planning considerations and issues raised from which were addressed by the DMO in their planning assessment of the application. In addition to the published papers a supplementary report was presented clarifying and correcting aspects of the published report.

The DMO summarised the planning history of the site and notably that an enforcement notice was issued in October 2021 for the unauthorised material change of use from car sales to a car wash.  That notice was unsuccessfully appealed in March 2022, and consequently it was noted that despite the submission of a retrospective application for a change of use, the time for compliance with the notice had passed, and the case was now at prosecution stage.

The Local Planning Authority has the power to decline to determine a planning application on a development already the subject of an enforcement notice. If any new application includes part of the details of the breach in the enforcement notice, then the LPA could decline its determination.  However, having regard to the grounds of the appeal and the outcome, it was noted that the appeal did not consider whether the development could be made acceptable if planning permission was retrospectively sought with or without conditions and planning obligations. In the light of this the Officers agreed that the retrospective application could be accepted and considered as long as it addressed the harm that was initially caused and required an enforcement notice to be served.

A representation was made at the meeting by Councillor Achilleos, who on behalf of his fellow Whalebone ward councillors made a statement opposing the application for the following reasons:

(1)   The applicant had shown a flagrant disregard of planning policy and enforcement action, and that based on his behaviour ward councillors had no confidence that should the application be approved that he would comply with the proposed conditions of use set out in the report.

(2)  The negative impact that the illegally operated business has had on residents through excessive and disruptive noise,

(3)  The adverse effect the business already has on traffic congestion in the immediate area, and the heightened risk of accidents, and

(4)  As that the local Controlled Parking Zone operated from 8am to 5.30pm and the application for the car wash was to operate until 7pm, there was potential for substantial queuing, which could lead to customers utilising resident parking spaces and cause problems for residents returning home from work.

The Chair asked the DMO that as to whether she was confident that adequate mitigation measures had been put in place with regards to the application to satisfy the reasons for issuing the enforcement notice. The DMO responded that she had worked closely with the applicant to overcome any concerns including those raised by ward councillors.

Members, whilst sympathising with the ward councillor’s point about the applicant disregarding the enforcement notice, did acknowledge that this was not a material planning consideration when it came to determining the retrospective application.  They did, however, think that there was merit in the points raised about noise, disturbance and parking issues, and to that extent should the Committee be mindful to approve the application then consideration could be given to restricting the operating hours from 7am to 5.30pm.

Officers stated that times of operation were open to discussion although the key factor would be one of reasonability, i.e. weighing up residents’ concerns to that of the viability of the business.

Another point raised was that the nature of the car wash operations meant that a number of the public claimed to get wet as they passed by the site on the footway and, should the application be approved, it would be sensible to erect some form of protective screening to mitigate the impact of splashes and water run-off from the site.

In response to the resident objections, the comments of the ward councillor and the remarks of the Members of the Committee, the applicant stated that he had operated on the site for over 30 years and had always looked to build good relationships with his neighbours. He questioned the validity of the enforcement notice suggesting that the change of use from car sales to that of a car wash were not, in his opinion, contrary to the original planning consent. That said, he accepted that his appeal against the enforcement notice had been dismissed but that by presenting the retrospective application and with the conditions suggested, he was confident he could work alongside residents to keep them happy. To that end, he would be prepared to put up appropriate protective screening as suggested.  As for the proposed additional time restrictions on operation until 5.30pm, he felt this was unfair given the nature of the High Road and that the vast majority of businesses operating in the area did not close until after 7pm.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the operation of the hand car wash on the site of the former petrol filling station forecourt were considered by officers to overcome the reasons for serving the enforcement notice.  Officers were also satisfied that, following the submission of additional information, the proposal would not generate unacceptable levels of pollution, noise and general disturbance, and would not pose an unacceptable threat to the quantity or quality of the Borough’s water resources.  As such, the proposal was considered to accord with the relevant development plan policies and, therefore, it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a number of conditions detailed in the report and the additional points raised by Members, namely that condition 1 be amended to require commencement within three months and not three years, that condition 3 be amended to change the hours of use from 19:00 to 17:30, and a new condition 7 be added that required protective screening be installed at the front of the site within three months, to prevent splashing on to the pavement.

The Committee resolved to agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report, and delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Inclusive Growth (or authorised Officer) to grant planning permission subject to the Conditions listed at Appendix 4 of the report as amended at the meeting.