Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.

None.

Agreed.

The Development Management Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development, presented the report relating to the application.

Members asked questions of the officer and raised concerns regarding aspects of the application.

A member of the public was present and in summary made the following point in objection to the application: 

• Due to businesses such as the applicant’s being open till midnight, crowds often gather in the vicinity causing noise nuisance to residents living nearby late at night. There have been occasions when fights have broken out involving police chases, which are frightening experiences for residents. On these grounds, the Board should not grant permission to the applicant to operate his business till midnight.

The Board made it clear to the objector that the applicant already has planning permission to operate his business till midnight. The Board was only being asked to grant planning permission to operate the business from 7 am. Therefore, although the Board would note the objector’s concerns, his comments did not constitute a relevant consideration whilst determining this application.

The applicant’s representative was present and raised the following points in support of the application:

• The applicant was aiming to provide a family orientated eating space  by providing seating areas within the premises
• The intention behind seeking planning permission was not to target school children who might wish to buy something to eat before school
• The applicant would aim to provide a variety of foods including healthy eating options
• There was no one living in the flat above the premises
• The anti-social behaviour the objector referred to could not be attributed to the applicant’s business

Agreed to grant planning permission for the variation of condition 2 in respect of planning permission TP/679/87/1 to allow use to operate between 7 am and midnight Monday to Sunday:

The earlier opening time is the same as that for other commercial properties in the parade and would not cause any material disturbance to residential accommodation in the area.

The Development Management Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development, presented the report relating to the application.

Members asked questions of the officer and raised concerns regarding aspects of the application.

A member of the public was present and stated that in his opinion the building was not suited to the use being proposed and suggested alternative uses.

Councillor Lee Waker stated that the building was too small for the proposal, which would be to the detriment of future occupiers.

A representative of the Dagenham Village Partnership was present and stated that local people strongly oppose the development being proposed. He added that the Board should refuse to grant permission because the development would fail to meet minimum standards.

After discussion, it was agreed to refuse planning permission for the erection of two storey side/rear extension in connection with conversion of building into 5 one-bedroom flats and 1 studio flat for the following reason:

Notwithstanding the constraints imposed by the grade 2 listed status of the building the proposed development would result in the creation of sub-standard residential units which would fail to provide adequate living or garden space contrary to policies H15 and H16 of the Unitary Development Plan and policies BP5 and BP6 of the Borough Wide Development Policies Pre-Submission Report.

The Development Management Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development, presented the report relating to the application.

Agreed to refuse planning permission for the erection of single storey rear extension and rear external ducting in connection with use of house as restaurant (Class A3) on ground floor with one bedroom flat above for the following reasons:

1.   The proposed development would result in the loss of a house suitable for family use contrary to Policy H2 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1996) and Policy BC4 of the Local Development Framework Borough Wide Development Policies Pre-Submission Report (November 2008).

2.   The proposed development by reason of its siting and increased comings and goings to the premises would be out of keeping and detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties, contrary to Policies S2 and S8 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1996) and Policies BR13, BE4 and BP8 of the Local Development Framework Borough Wide Development Policies Pre-Submission Report (November 2008).

3.    The proposed development by reason of its flat roofed front extension accommodating a new shopfront would be detrimental to the streetscene and general visual amenity and be contrary to Policy S14 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1996) and Policy BP11 of the Local Development Framework Borough Wide Development Policies Pre-Submission Report (November 2008).

The Development Management Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development, presented the report relating to the application.

Agreed to grant planning permission for the erection of a three storey extension to hotel to provide 21 additional bedrooms and single storey restaurant extension, subject to the following conditions:

1.  F.1  Details of Soft Landscaping

2.  F.2  Implementation of Proposed Soft Landscaping

3.  I.6  Completion of Parking Areas

4.  M.4  Hours of Construction Work

5.  M.5  Construction Work (Noise)

6.  N.7  Dust Suppression

7.  O.1  Details of Dustbin Enclosures

8.  Q.1  Details/Samples of Facing Materials

9.  R.2  Disabled Persons Parking Bays

10.  The development shall not be commenced until a scheme showing the provisions to be made for CCTV coverage, access control including measures to secure the car parking area and any other measures to reduce the risk of crime, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Notwithstanding the details indicated on drawing number 05AC03 010 Rev F, no approval is given to the proposed secure parking gates/measures.  The scheme to be submitted shall provide revised details of security gates/measures for the car park.  The scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the approved details and thereafter permanently retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

11.  The development shall not be commenced until a scheme showing the provisions to be made for cycle parking has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall include design details of the cycle parking provision, number of spaces to be provided and should also include details with regards to the number of staff employed at the Ibis Hotel.  The development shall provide cycle parking provision in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and thereafter permanently retained. 

12.  Notwithstanding the details provided in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, the finished floor levels of the development should be set at above 3.5 metres AOD unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

13.  No development shall commence until an Emergency and Evacuation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Development Management Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development, presented the report relating to the application.

Agreed to grant planning permission for the demolition of building and erection of 2 storey building with accommodation in roof to provide 4 one-bedroom flats and retail shop (Class A1) on ground floor together with associated access road and car parking areas, subject to the following conditions:

1.  Q01 – Details/Samples of Facing Materials

2.  F01A - Details of Soft Landscaping

3.  F02 – Implementing Proposed Soft Landscaping

4.  F04 - Details of Hard Landscaping

5.  O01A - Details of Dustbin Enclosures

6.  Prior to occupation of the development, the boundaries of the site shall be secured in accordance with the details indicated on drawing no. 09001 rev. A and thereafter permanently retained.

7.  The entrance door to the retail premises and the ground floor access to the flats approved shall have a level or ramped approach and thereafter be permanently retained as such.

8.  Prior to commencement of the development, details of the access gates including materials to be used, design and locking system to be installed shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and retained thereafter.

9.  Prior to occupation of the development, details of an external lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and retained thereafter.

10. Prior to occupation of the development, details of covered and secure cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and retained thereafter.

The Development Management Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development, presented the report relating to the application.

The Board agreed with the officer’s recommendation within the report relating to the application.

Received and noted details of two appeals lodged:

a)  Application for variation of condition no. 17 in respect of planning permission 5/00773/REG3 as renewed by planning permission 09/00121/REG3 to allow late use of premises 3 times a year - Eastbury Comprehensive School, Rosslyn Road, Barking.

Application (Ref: 09/00384/FUl) refused at DCB 6 July 2009

b)  Erection of 1.8 metre high front boundary fence - 2 Jasmine Road, Rush Green

  Application (Ref: 09/00117/FUL) refused under delegated powers 13 May 2009

And one appeal determined:

a)  Conversion of dwelling into 2 one-bedroom flats - 54 Rosedale Road, Dagenham. Appeal dismissed 5 August 2009.

  Application (ref: 08/00821/FUL) refused under delegated powers 5 August 2009

Noted, that since 30 July 2009, of the 28 appeals resulting from delegated decisions, 19 were dismissed and nine allowed giving a success rate of 68%. There were seven appeals resulting from Member decisions and of these, six were dismissed and one allowed giving a success rate of 86%.

Received and noted details of delegated decisions for the period 7 – 24 July 2009.