REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Thursday Havering Town Hall 7.30pm 1 February 2007 Main Road, Romford

Members 10 : Quorum 4

COUNCILLORS:

Conservative Group Residents’ Rainham Resident Labour Group Group Group

Roger Evans (Chairman) Linda Hawthorn Coral Jeffrey Tom Binding Barry Tebbutt (V Chairman) Steve Whittaker Jeffrey Brace David Grantham Robby Misir Barry Oddy

For information about the meeting please contact: Andy Beesley (01708) 432437 E-mail: [email protected]

s:\bssadmin\committees\regulatory\agenda\2007\070201agenda.doc REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA Urgent Business

1 February 2007

Additional Reports

The following reports are attached:

13a U0014.06 - Rainham Marshes, Rainham

13b U0015.06 - Rainham Marshes, Rainham

13c P2132.06 – 44-52 Market Place, Romford

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive

070201suppagenda.doc COMMITTEE DATE ITEM

REGULATORY SERVICES 1 February 2007 COMMITTEE 13c

This report is submitted with the agreement of the Chair as an urgent matter, pursuant to Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: P2132.06 – 44 – 52 MARKET PLACE, ROMFORD.

Proposal: Redevelopment and extension of a predominantly vacant building to provide a multi unit A1 retail scheme including covering over of Swan Walk to create extension of the Liberty Mall and the realignment of the Debenhams’ façade. (Date received 07/11/2006).

Ward: Romford Town

SUMMARY

The proposal is for the redevelopment and extension of a two-storey retail building. The building is located on the south-eastern side of the Market Place adjacent to Swan Walk. It is accessed via The Liberty Shopping Centre and Market Place.

The majority of the store now vacant was occupied by Littlewoods and includes a further 10 independent retail stores accessed via Swan Walk. The total redevelopment amounts to a total sales and storage gross floorspace of 9,596m² compared with the existing gross floorspace of 8,174m². s:\bssadmin\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item13cp2132.06.littlewoods site - 44- 52 market place.doc 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

The redevelopment would result in the conversion of the building and the current ten units to 8 independent retail stores. Within the redeveloped building two flagship stores are proposed; unit 1 fronting Market Place (2,897m²) and Unit 8 fronting the central quadrant of the Liberty Centre (1,899m²).

The proposal would create an all-retail multi-unit scheme with a glass link proposed between the Liberty Shopping Centre and the market i.e. covering over Swan Walk.

The proposal also involves alterations to and the realignment of the Debenhams’ entrance adjacent to Swan Walk.

It is considered that policy objectives would be met and approval of planning permission is recommended subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. SC04 (Time limit);

2. SC10B (Details of works and samples of materials);

3. SC57 (Wheel Washing);

4. SC58 (Refuse Storage);

5. SC62 (Hours of Construction);

6. SC122 (Archaeological Investigation)

7. Before the building hereby permitted is first occupied, provision shall be made within the site for adequate refuse recycling in accordance with standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority; thereafter such provision shall be made permanently available for use unless agreed in writing by the Local planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that domestic refuse is disposed of in a sustainable manner.

8. Prior to the completion of the works hereby permitted, provision for staff cycle storage of a type and in a location previously submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Planning Authority; thereafter such provision shall be made permanently available for use unless agreed in writing by the Local planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of providing a wide range of facilities for non-motor car residents, in the interests of sustainability.

9. SC42 (Noise Insulation - Machinery)

10. Before the works hereby permitted commence a scheme for new plant or machinery shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to achieve the following standard: Noise levels expressed as the equivalent continuous sound level LAeq (I hour) when calculated at the boundary with the nearest noise sensitive premises shall not exceed LA90 -5dB and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent noise nuisance to adjoining properties in accordance with the recommendations of PPG Note 24 Planning and Noise 1994.

11. SC32 (Accordance with approved plans)

12. No development shall be commenced until a sustainability statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall outline how the development will meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction to incorporate the seven measures identified in Policy 4B.6 of the London Plan and shall be required to demonstrate that the development will achieve a BREEAM (Retail) rating of “Very Good” or better. The developer shall provide a copy of the final Building Research Establishment (BRE) certificate confirming that the development design achieves a minimum BREEAM (Retail) rating of “Very Good”. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the agreed Sustainability Statement and if required by the Local Planning Authority, BREEAM Post Construction Assessment shall be carried out on all or a sample of the development to ensure that the required minimum rating has been achieved.

Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainability in accordance with the Council’s Interim

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Planning Guidance on Sustainability and Policies 4A.7 of the London Plan.

13. Prior to the commencement of development, an Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall incorporate an energy demand assessment and shall detail the energy efficiency design measures and renewable energy technology to be incorporated into the final design of the development. The statement shall demonstrate how the development will displace at least 10% of carbon dioxide emissions through on site renewable energy measures and energy efficient technology above and beyond Building Regulation requirements. The development or relevant phase thereof shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the agreed energy statement and the measures identified therein.

Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainability in accordance with the Councils Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainable Design and Construction and Policies 4A.7, 4A.8 and 4A.9 of the London Plan.

14. No external plant or equipment shall be installed at the site unless details of its design, appearance and location have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details that show how the principles and practices of the Secured by Design Award Scheme are to be incorporated into the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any construction works. Once approved, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities reflecting the guidance set out in PPS1 and in pursuance of the Council’s duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in exercising its planning functions.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

16. All of the retail units within the development shall be used for Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 or the equivalent class or classes in any subsequent amendment to the Order.

Reason: To restrict the use to those uses compatible with this part of the town centre and to enable the local planning authority to exercise control over non-retail uses.

17. The retail uses hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 8am to 8.30pm on any day, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

18. Prior to the commencement of development details of the phasing of the construction of retail units 1-8 including details of the roofing of Swan Walk and the integration of the roof with the Liberty Centre, units 1-7 and the refurbished façade of Debenhams facing Swan Walk as approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall proceed strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the phasing of the development is co- ordinated to secure amongst other things the roofing of Swan Walk in order to integrate it fully with the Liberty Centre.

INFORMATIVES:

INFORMATIVE 1: The London Borough of Havering fully supports Secured by Design accreditation where appropriate. It is recommended that the applicant consider applying for this award, which is a national police initiative, designed to encourage the building industry to adopt crime prevention measures and create safe, secure and sustainable environments.

INFORMATIVE 2: The Council encourages the developer to apply the principles of the “Considerate Constructors Scheme" to the contract for the development.'

INFORMATIVE 3: REASON FOR APPROVAL: The proposed scheme is considered in policy terms to be acceptable. The proposal reflects current Government policy and advice on

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

creating sustainable development in terms of design and materials, the efficient use of land and encouraging retail development with easy access to facilities and does not have a materially adverse impact on amenity. The proposal is therefore, considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policies ENV1, ENV4, ROM1, ROM3, ROM4, TRN2, and TRN18 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and policies 2A.5, 3D.1 and 3D.3of The London Plan and policies DC15 and DC68 of the Local Development Framework.

INFORMATIVE 4: The applicant is advised that the proposal would need to take cognisance of BS 5588 Part 10 of the Building Regulations (Design of enclosed shopping malls).

INFORMATIVE 5: The applicant is advised to contact the LFEDA with regard to access to the site for emergency vehicles.

REPORT DETAIL

1. SITE DESCRIPTION:

1.1 The application site is an irregular parcel of land covering an area of 0.43 hectares and located on the south-eastern side of the Market Place. The site has a frontage to the Market Place of 44 metres and a frontage to the Liberty Centre of 16.4metres. The application site comprises the former Littlewoods store and associated units, Swan Walk and part of the western elevation of the Debenhams’ store.

1.2 The site is within Romford Town Centre Area and is identified in the Unitary Development Plan, Interim Planning Guidance, as well as the Local Development Framework as being suitable for retail use.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

2.1 This proposal involves the redevelopment of a two-storey retail building. The majority of the store now vacant was occupied by Littlewoods. The total redevelopment amounts to a total sales and storage gross floorspace of 9,596m² compared with the existing gross floorspace of 8,174m², i.e. an increase of 1,422 m².

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

2.2 To assist Members the description of the proposal is broken down into three elements A (Littlewoods store and associated units), B (Swan Walk) and C (Debenhams).

A Littlewoods store and associated units

The first element would result in the redevelopment of the Littlewoods store including the ten other units attached to it that currently face Swan Walk. This element of the redevelopment comprises the following:

The conversion of the existing building into 8 independent retail units (units 1-8). Units 1-7 would each have a basement area and ground floor area. Units 1-5 would also have a first floor area. Unit 8 would have a ground floor plus a first floor and a second interlinking floor. Finally, unit 1 would occupy 4 floors i.e. basement, ground, first and second floor. The gross floorspace breakdowns for each of the units which include retail and storage areas are as follows:

Unit 1 = 2,897m² Unit 2 = 613m² Unit 3 = 640m² Unit 4 = 650m² Unit 5 = 988m² Unit 6 = 864m² Unit 7 = 780m² Unit 8 =1,899m²

Unit I would front Market Place whilst unit 8 would be located within the current Liberty Centre between the current HM Samuel and Barratts stores. Units 1 and 8 are effectively the bookends of the proposed development and are intended as flagship stores.

The proposal would result in fully glazed shop fronts to both Market Place and Swan Walk with automatic doors to Swan Walk.

The elevation to Market Link would incorporate within its design a titanium clad panelled floating front façade. This element would extend over the first and second floor face of the existing building. The floating screen would be set 1.2m in front of the main mass of the building and would be mounted on feature circular steel silver grey columns. The screen would incorporate within it diagonal window slots and modular Portland stone panels. An existing 2.5m canopy to the front of the building would be removed.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 8

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

The units would be serviced via the first floor as with the existing building. It will be realigned to make way for the additional floor proposed to unit 8.

B Swan Walk

The second separate element of the development relates to the remodelling of Swan Walk, which is the pedestrian link between the Liberty Centre and the market. The applicants propose to integrate Swan Walk within the Liberty Centre. They propose to achieve this by extending the existing granite floor surfacing within the Liberty Centre to Swan Walk and by putting the whole of Swan Walk undercover. This would take the form of a predominantly glazed roof of similar form to the Liberty Shopping Centre roof.

The Market Link frontage to Swan Walk would be fully glazed with glazed double entrance doors. The Swan Walk element fronting Market Link would be set back from the Debenhams and Littlewoods building and would also be lower in terms of roof height than these neighbouring buildings. This has a resulting effect of separating the development visually and highlights the differing functions of the buildings; one being an entrance to the Liberty Centre and the other announcing the new retail store.

The new Swan Walk link design incorporates a fully glazed canopy fronting Market Place. The applicants have advised that the intention is to have the canopy illuminated at night with computer controlled lighting effects.

Where the building is adjacent to Swan Walk it is proposed to rebuild the first floor. This would involve cutting back the existing projecting overhang such that the first floor elevation of the building would align with the existing ground floor units. The existing pillars along this side of Swan Walk would be removed. All the units along this elevation would be fully glazed from ground to first floor.

The resultant Swan Walk would be between 4.8m and 6m in width.

C Debenhams

The final separate element of the application involves alterations to the existing Debenhams store. In order to achieve cohesion between all elements of the scheme the application also seeks remodelling to the façade of Debenhams fronting Swan Walk. This would take the form of a new double height glazed entrance into the store to be centrally located along this elevation. The existing entrance on the corner adjacent to the service corridor (within Swan Walk) would be converted to a fire escape.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 9

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

The remodelling of this part of Debenhams introduces glazing bars/shop fronts and the possibility of 4 additional retail units that would marry in with those proposed in the new units opposite. Along this elevation it is proposed to set the Debenhams shop front forward approximately 2m in line with the current pillars on this side of Swan walk. These pillars will also be removed.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 10

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

3. HISTORY: FOR APPLICATION SITE

A/53/85 – Shop signs – replacement of existing with new style letters illuminated Approved; A0083.88 – Illuminated shop fascia signs – Approved; A136.89 – Illuminated shop sign – Approved; A0075.93 – Retention of illuminated shop signs - Approved; A0076.95 – hop sign for front elevation - Approved; P1333.95 – New shop front with central access with automatic doors – Approved; P0073.98 – Alterations to ground floor retail floorspace development at first floor level to provide additional retail/storage space – Deemed refused;

RELEVANT HISTORY: FOR THE LIBERTY SHOPPING CENTRE

P0233.00 - Refurbishment of existing shopping centre, expansion of retail floorspace and construction of 800 space multi storey car park (6 storey) and offices – Approved P0234.00 - Demolition of existing south stack car park (625 spaces - 5 storey) and construction of 800 space car park (6 storey) - Approved P00083.01 - Refurbishment of existing shopping centre, expansion of retail floorspace and construction of 800 space multi storey car park (6 storey) and offices – Approved

4. CONSULTATIONS / REPRESENTATIONS:

The application has been advertised as a major development and as development affecting the Romford Conservation Area. 33 neighbouring properties have been notified. No letters of representation have been received as a result.

English Heritage: No comments

5. STAFF COMMENTS:

5.1 The issues to be considered are the principle of retail development, the layout and form of development and the impact of the development on the character of the town centre and on the Conservation Area. Policies ENV1, ENV3, ROM1, ROM3, ROM4, TRN2 and TRN18 of the UDP are relevant as is Interim Planning Guidance - Romford Urban Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction. PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS6 (Planning for Town centres), PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and PPG13 (Transport) are material considerations, as are policies DC15 and DC68 of the Havering Local

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 11

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Development Framework and policies 2A.5, 3D.1 and 3D.3 of the London Plan. The London Borough of Havering Retail and Leisure Study is also a material consideration.

6. BACKGROUND

6.1 The application site is located within Romford Town Centre. This proposal would contribute to the existing improvement and regeneration in the town centre. Adding to the following recently completed or developments still underway:

· Market Place refurbishment; · Clock Tower development ; · North side of the Market Place which provides a new shopping hall, residential properties, office space and a new hotel; · Redevelopment of the former Dolphin site to create a new Asda superstore and residential development · Brewery development · Development of the new Oldchurch Hospital · Refurbishment project at the Liberty Shopping Centre · Redevelopment of the former Oldchurch Hospital site for key worker housing

6.2 The Liberty Shopping Centre was relatively recently refurbished and redeveloped. Under planning reference P0233.00 planning permission was granted for the refurbishment of the existing shopping centre, expansion of retail floorspace and construction of 800 space multi storey car park (6 storey) and offices.

6.3 The majority of the application site building was occupied by Littlewoods (clothing store). Iceland (food store) which had a lease from Littlewoods also occupied part of the main building. In 2005 the Littlewoods chain of stores were sold and the Romford store closed. Access to the Littlewoods/Iceland was via The Liberty centre and Market Link.

6.4 The main building with a gross floorspace of approximately 8,000m² has been vacant for over a year.

7. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

7.1 The application site is located within "Romford Town Centre" and is within the defined retail core. Policy ROM1 states that there will be a general presumption in favour of the creation of additional retail floorspace provided it would not prejudice other UDP policies. Policy ROM3 states amongst other things that within the retail core the Council will allow A1 uses.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 12

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

7.2 Government advice contained within PPS1 encourages Local Planning Authorities to actively ensure that vacant and underused land and buildings are brought back into beneficial use to achieve the targets the Government has set for development on previously developed land which can help to create vitality.

7.3 PPS6 sets out the Governments key aims for town centres, which are broadly as follows:

· Focusing development in town centres; · To enhance consumer choice with a wide provision of shopping, leisure and local services to meet the needs of the whole community; · To ensure development is accessible by a range of means of transport; · To encourage investment in disadvantaged areas to provide improved services, more employment opportunities and combat social exclusion; · To promote high quality and inclusive design and make efficient use of land in town centres to deliver more sustainable development; · To encourage a cleaner, safer, greener town centre environment.

7.3 The overall focus of PPS6 is geared towards the prosperity of the town centre with the applicant having to demonstrate that proposals for new retail development are justifiable in terms of the sequential test, quantitative and qualitative need, evidence that new retail floor space would not harm the vitality and viability of the town centre. Members should note that as this application is essentially the upgrading and redevelopment of existing retail space the sequential test is not a requirement in this case.

7.4 In addition the site is covered by the Romford Urban Strategy; Interim Planning Guidance. This supplements Policies ROM1 to ROM18 of the UDP. Objective UD01 of the guidance states that all proposals for development and alterations and extensions in the town centre will be required to address the following elements in a positive way:

· Efficient use of land; · Urban grain and enclosure; · Linkages to neighbouring developments and land uses; · Building lines; · Form, rhythm and massing; · Layout; height and scale; · Hard and soft landscaping components.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 13

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

7.5 In terms of principle, the land lies within the core of Romford town centre and has been used for retail purposes for many years. The principle of commercial redevelopment here is therefore supported by both national and local policies.

7.6 The existing store would be remodelled to make way for the development. It should be noted that the store is not listed and it is only the front façade of the building fronting Market Place that falls within Romford Conservation Area. Having regard to its Conservation Area status its impact in the streetscene is important and in staff’s view the proposed development should result in a building of presence and quality.

7.7 The Local Development Framework (LDF) is also applicable. Within this document UDP policy ROM3 is carried through encouraging retail uses. LDF policies DC15 (locating retail and service development and DC68 (Conservation Areas) also apply.

8. DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

8.1 The area surrounding the site is mixed in character comprising a mixture of building styles, sizes and types, both commercial and residential. To the east of the application site is Swan Walk and a four storey building occupied by Debenhams and to its west a two storey building occupied by 99p stores. It should be noted that although the application site building is two-storeys its raised parapet feature gives the impression of a much taller building. A few of the buildings that are close to the site on the opposite side of Market Place are Rumford Shopping Hall a two-storey building with large projecting gable feature; the 3 / 4 storey art deco building occupied by TJ Hughes; to its west the Grade II* Listed St Edmund the Confessor Church; adjacent to the church to its right is the three storey building occupied by HSBC Bank.

8.2 The Market Place has a strong and varied tapestry of building styles and sizes. The western end of Market Places has seen the relatively recent erection of the three/four storey clock tower building. Littlewoods Store:

8.3 The former Littlewoods building and associated units would be significantly altered by the proposal. The main exposed elevation of the building onto Market Place uses a range of modern materials which positively articulate the building frontage. It is proposed to provide, as the principal elements fully glazed shop fronts and canopies, titanium cladding, granite flooring and Portland stone on the extended elevations. Members may agree that the style and choice of materials proposed convey a high quality appearance which will enhance the appearance of the Market Place Conservation Area and the wider town centre. In

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 14

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

particular, the choice of stainless steel/titanium cladding over Portland stone modules is considered to be bold and an interesting feature and provides a much needed quality uplift in contrast to the existing rather dated looking shop frontage of which it is a part. It is apparent in the use of the Portland stone modules that the applicant has also referenced adjacent buildings so that it complements as well as contrasts the existing streetscene. The proposals, therefore, also meet the high quality design objectives for the area. In principle staff are supportive of a design approach which introduces a strong and visually bold feature along Market Place.

Swan Walk:

8.4 The treatment of Swan Walk is also welcome, the choice of materials particularly the use of the granite floor surfacing and the glazed roofing provide a workable cohesion with the adjoining Liberty centre.

8.5 Both the frontages onto Swan Walk and Market Place will provide activity and engagement at street level which is a key aspiration of the Romford Urban Strategy. The covering of Swan Walk has been a long-term aspiration of the Council. Members may agree with staff that signage would be a key element in creating this area as a gateway from both Market Place into the Liberty and vice versa. To that regard should Members be minded to grant planning permission a condition should be imposed requiring details of all signage.

Debenhams:

8.6 The proposed new entrance to Debenhams is welcome and will provide new activity along this side of Swan Walk. The potential to create additional boutique style units along the Debenhams Swan Walk frontage is welcome and to be encouraged as these will provide greater retail opportunity and increased level of activity. The same is true of the retail units on the opposite side of Swan Walk, where there is opportunity to raise the level and quality of retail on offer.

8.7 In addition staff are of the view that the proposals are likely to bring about better integration in function and management with both the adjoining Liberty centre and the Debenhams store

8.8 PPS1 (paragraph 35) advises that high quality and inclusive design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process. “High quality and inclusive design should create well-mixed and integrated developments…” “It means ensuring a place will function well and add to the overall character and quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. This requires carefully planned, high

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 15

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

quality buildings and spaces that support the efficient use of resources. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are clearly factors in achieving these objectives, securing high quality and inclusive design goes far beyond aesthetic considerations.” PPS1 goes on to state “Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people”. Staff consider that the proposal accords with the broad principles of PPS1.

8.9 The applicants have redesigned the existing Littlewoods and Debenhams building in response to a considered requirement for a new uplift to this part of Romford Town Centre. Staff are of the view that the proposed design would successfully integrate into an area of mixed architectural styles and ages. The resulting elevations are considered to be cohesive in scale, symmetry, bulk, articulation of shop fronts and roof forms.

8.10 Albeit the interpretation of design is a subjective matter staff are of the opinion that the proposals are consistent with the existing form, scale and massing of the building elevations to the south of Market Place and will be consistent with those being produced by the North Side development opposite. The contemporary approach towards design with the use of a mixture of both modern and traditional materials is considered to be an appropriate response to the site circumstances.

9. CONSERVATION AREA IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The façade of the existing store adjacent to Market Place is within the Conservation Area. As previously stated as part of the proposed development this elevation is to receive a new facelift. The alterations to Swan Walk also have implications for the Conservation Area.

9.2 Staff are of the view that the new façades i.e. the glazed frontage to Swan Walk and the Titanium panelled cladding and planar glazing to the former Littlewoods store would, as a contemporary response, contribute effectively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed quality of the design and materials are considered to have the effect of improving the setting of the development within the Conservation Area. The proposed modern design approach is considered to have been sensitively achieved, reflecting existing as well as proposed schemes in the area yet creating an individual identity.

9.3 It is considered that this proposal would not result in unacceptable damage to the Conservation Area. Indeed as required by ENV3 its redevelopment would enhance and preserve the character of the Conservation Area. It is far enough removed from the Grade II* Listed Church to have no detrimental impact on its setting.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 16

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

10. AMENITY ISSUES

10.1 Policy ENV1 requires that all new developments shall not be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers by reason of loss of light overlooking or other impacts.

10.2 Residential development is being constructed on the opposite side of Market Place. Staff are satisfied that the proposed development is sufficiently well enough removed and unlikely to result in any material harm.

10.3 Pedestrians using the area would not be harmed by the development. Indeed it could be argued that particularly with the covering over and alterations proposed to Swan Walk the amenity of pedestrians using this area is likely to be improved.

10.4 The development is considered to be acceptable and accords with the principles of policy ENV1.

11. HIGHWAY ISSUES

11.1 No car parking has been provided for the development, which is no different than the existing development. In any event, given that this is a town centre location and Government advice aims to reduce parking at appropriate levels the absence of specific parking provision on the site is acceptable in this case.

11.2 The Town Centre benefits from a good range of frequent public transport. Romford Station is an approximate ten minute walk from the site.

11.3 In addition there are numerous public car parks within easy walking distance of the site including Market Place which is generally available for parking 4 days a week plus the 600 car space Liberty Centre car park.

11.4 Staff are satisfied that this aspect of the proposal complies with the aims of securing sustainable travel patterns.

SERVICE AND DELIVERY

11.5 Loading/deliveries to the units would take place via the existing one-way service road accessed off Mercury Gardens. Resulting from the proposed additional interlinking floor to unit 8 proposed within the Liberty Centre the service yard would be altered. Staff are satisfied that there is unlikely to be any material highway or parking implications as a result of the alterations.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 17

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

11.6 No objections are proposed to the proposal on highway grounds which accords with UDP policy and PPG13.

12. SUSTAINABILITY

12.1 The applicant has submitted a statement on sustainability issues which is shaped by recent Government guidance. Staff are satisfied that the development would be constructed successfully and fully meet the required performance indicators.

12.2 In accordance with the aims of IPG Sustainable Design and Construction and the London Plan the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the development will achieve a BREEAM (Retail) rating of “Very Good” or better. This can be achieved by condition.

12.3 Staff consider that the proposal would benefit from the provision of staff cycle bays within the development should Members be minded to grant planning permission this also can be secured by condition.

13. OTHER MATTERS

13.1 The applicant has incorporated secure by design advice. The proposed changes to Swan Walk would result in a fully glazed link lit environment which staff are of the view would be significantly safer for shoppers than the existing environment.

13.2 No education or affordable housing contribution would be required in this case as the proposals do not include any level of residential development.

13.3 The proposals do not raise archaeology/contamination issues as no significant ground works as such are proposed.

14. CONCLUSIONS

14.1 Staff are of the view that the proposals fully address the Urban Design Principles set out in the IPG for Romford in that the scheme is of high quality architecture and urban design which will improve the quality of the built environment and reinforce a sense of place.

14.2 The proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse impact to the integrity of the Conservation Area or the site environment. In staff’s opinion the building’s architectural character and appearance will be enhanced by the proposal.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 18

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

14.3 It is considered that the proposed redevelopment would result in a significant improvement in terms of the character of the area and impact on neighbouring premises. In addition the proposal brings back into use a large retail floorspace which is considered an essential supplement to the viability and vitality of Romford shopping centre.

14.4 In this respect the proposals are in step with the Council’s policies and those of the London Plan that are intended to support, maintain and improve retail facilities in town centres. The development would integrate both The Liberty Shopping Centre and Swan Walk and would not only go a long way in improving the visual quality of the environment but also in fulfilling the long term aspirations of the Council for enhancing this part of the town centre.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS

None

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS

None

HUMAN RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

None

EQUALITIES AND SOCIAL INCLUSION IMPLICATIONS:

The Council’s planning policies are implemented with regard to Equalities and Diversity.

Staff contact: David Lawn Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone number: 432800

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive

Background Papers

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC 19

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

2. The case sheet and examination sheet.

3. Ordnance survey extract showing site and surroundings.

4. Standard Planning Conditions and Standard Green Belt reason for refusal.

5. Relevant details of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Article 4 Directions.

6. Copy of all consultations/representations received and correspondence, including other Council Directorates and Statutory Consultees.

7. The relevant planning history.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13CP2132.06.LITTLEWOODS SITE - 44- 52 MARKET PLACE.DOC abcdefghijklmn MEETING DATE ITEM REGULATORY SERVICES 1 February 2007 13a COMMITTEE

This report is submitted with the agreement of the Chairman as an urgent matter, pursuant to Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: U0014.06 Rainham Marshes

PROPOSAL: Construction of a 1900m long x 3m wide shared use footpath/cycle path through an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) between Coldharbour Lane and Ferry Lane North, to include 10No. bridged watercourse crossings, motorcycle barriers, pedestrian crossing point with anti-skid paint and signage, excavation of new ditches to create drains/watercourses to provide additional habitat and to improve the security of the adjacent wetland grazing marsh, and the ‘making safe’ of industrial contamination at the Murex Diamond by capping with a minimum of 0.5m of arisings from the excavation of the new ditches.

WARD: Rainham / Wennington

SUMMARY

1. This application submitted on behalf of the London Borough of Havering, proposes to construct a shared use pedestrian/cycleway through the Rainham SSSI marshes. The pathway will involve 10 bridged watercourse crossings, new ditches for habitat improvement and the making safe an area of industrial contamination.

2. This application will be determined by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) under its planning powers. The purpose of this report is to seek members’ views on the application which will be included with those of other consultees in the report to the LTGDC planning committee.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item13aU0014.06 - Rainham Marshes Footpath_Final_V3_cleared.doc 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

3. The application falls to the LTGDC to be determined because of the scale and nature of the development.

RECOMMENDATION

1) That the committee raise no objections to the proposal and;

2) That the Head of Development and Building Control be authorised to prepare a written response to the LTGDC in accordance with the recommendation or as otherwise resolved by the committee at the meeting.

REPORT DETAIL

1.0 Introduction:

1.1 This report is made to seek the views of members on this application for the proposed development of a 1,900 metre long by 3m wide shared use cycle/pedestrian path through part of the Rainham Marshes providing further pedestrian access to the Thames Gateway Conservation Park.

1.2 The application will be determined by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation. The Development Corporation will take these views into account, along with those of other consultees and any local representations, when making its decision on the application.

2.0 Site Description:

2.1 The site encompasses an area through part of the SSSI Rainham Marshes located to the north and south of the A13 and extends from Rainham Station through to Coldharbour Lane.

3.0 Description of proposal:

3.1 The proposal is to construct a 1,900 metre long by 3 metre wide shared use cycle/pedestrian path that will involve 10 bridged crossings of watercourse, formation of drainage ditches, health and safety signage and a number of motorcycle barriers. This will link the western end of the existing Rainham to Purfleet footpath/cycleway at Coldharbour Lane (referred to as Phase 1) to Rainham Village. The current proposal is divided into two phases known as Phase 2 and Phase 3 (refer to diagram 1).

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13AU0014.06 - RAINHAM MARSHES FOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

3.2 Phase 2 will comprise 1,350m of 3m wide pathway across Rainham Marshes between Coldharbour Lane and the existing footpath on the southern side of the junction between Ferry Lane South and the A13.

3.3 The bridges will be constructed of precast concrete to a width of 3.5m. Handrails are to be locally sourced hardwood to an approximate height of 1.5m. The ten bridges range in lengths from 9.75m to 17m depending on the width of the water course and will be predominately level for safe utilisation.

3.4 The proposal is to be constructed as one project but is described in two phases for matter of construction purposes. The foundations for 8 of the 10 bridged crossings of watercourse and the excavation of 580m of new ditches to provide additional habitat will be constructed as part of the Phase 2 works and will improve the security of the adjacent wetland grazing marsh. The installation of the 10 bridges will be completed as part of Phase 3.

3.5 Phase 3 will be 500m of 3m wide pathway connecting to the existing footpath on the north side of the junction between Ferry Lane North and the A13 to Rainham Village (north end of Ferry Lane and Railway Station). It will run parallel to Ferry Lane North, between 10 metres and 18 metres into the marsh, adjacent to the proposed new route of the Ferry Lane Sewer.

3.6 The path will have an asphalt surface in order to ensure full accessibility for cyclists and people with mobility difficulties.

3.7 Excavated material from the ditches will be used to provide a 0.5m cap and make safe an area of industrial contamination known as the Murex 'Diamond' near to the southern edge of the Council's land. A Phase 1 contaminated land risk assessment covering this work has been submitted with this application.

4.0 History:

4.1 The Rainham Marshes along with the Wennington and Aveley Marshes form one of London’s largest green spaces at 1500 acres. For centuries, the site was preserved as a vast expanse of wetland, grazed by cattle and it supports a wide range of rare plants and animal species. The site was designated in 2003 as Thames Gateway Environment Flagship Project.

4.2 Relevant applications include:

V0001.91 – Diversions of Overhead Powerlines – Approved V0002.91 – Diversions of Overhead Powerlines – Approved P2082.03 – Construction of 3.65km of pathway – Approved U0015.06 – Construction of a 400m long x 3m wide shared use footpath/ cycle path to the south of the Freightmaster Estate, to include a 2.1m high chainlink fence and motorcycle barriers.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13AU0014.06 - RAINHAM MARSHES FOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

5.0 Consultations and Representations:

5.1 As part of the procedures established by the council for considering applications to be determined by LTGDC, Ward Councillors in the South Havering area have been consulted. At the time of preparation of the report no objections had been received.

5.2 Any representations received will be reported at the meeting.

5.3 Further consultation has been undertaken. A number of replies have been received.

5.4 The development has support from a number of groups including RSPB and Natural England. CPRE are generally supportive of the proposal, however objections are raised to the shared use of the pathway with cyclists with this view expressed with the Ramblers and Wildlife Concern. Wildlife Concern have further suggested the widening of the existing pathway alongside Ferry Lane rather than the construction of a new pathway through the marshes to reduce any further impact upon the nature reserve. These letters will be forwarded to the LTGDC along with the recommendation of the members.

6.0 Policy Considerations & Issues: 6.1 Policy Guidance

6.1.1 Government Guidance in PPS1 (General policy and principles) encourages sustainable development through the planning process. The London Plan supports these principles outlined within the Thames Gateway Policy 5C. Further guidance is set out in RPG9a (The Thames Gateway Planning Framework).

6.1.2 PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) and PPS25 (Development and flood risk) are also relevant along with policies 4C.6 and 4A.16 of the London Plan.

6.1.3 UDP policy ENV1 (Environmental Criteria for New Developments); ENV7 (Nature Conservation) set out the local policies relating to this area. These aim to assist in the protection of the environment in regard to areas of scientific interest, local nature reserves and nature conservation importance. The policies ensure good techniques are implemented in any development. TRN15 applies and aims to provide for safe and convenient cyclist movements. LAR11 aims to improve public access within the countryside. Further London Plan Policies 3D.7, 3D.10, 3D.11 and 3D.12 would apply to this development.

6.1.4 ENV8 concerns contaminated sites.

6.1.5 Havering’s Local Development Framework has been approved for consultation and is a material consideration. The LDF identifies the site as

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13AU0014.06 - RAINHAM MARSHES FOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

subjected to flood risk in DC49 and to consider Biodiversity and Geodiversity in policy DC58.

6.1.6 Havering’s Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) sets out Havering's approach to a number of planning policy issues pending the adoption of the Local Development Framework and may give further weight to the LDF. IPG (London Riverside Urban Strategy) identifies the site as part of an area designated as a regionally important ecological and leisure asset for London Riverside. The LTGDC document “Wildspace for a World City” would further identify the site as an environmental flagship project and would be relevant to this proposal.

6.2 Issues:

6.2.1 The issues are the principle of development, its impact on local environmental conditions including public health and safety and protected species and habitats.

6.3 Principle of the development:

6.3.1 The proposed development is one of a number of projects identified within the development of the London Riverside Conservation Park. It will provide a cycle/pedestrian path linking Rainham Village and Purfleet that will continue to open up large parts of the Conservation Park to the public, in particular for those without access to cars and for people with mobility difficulties.

6.3.2 The proposal will contribute to the achievement of policies in both the UDP, emerging LDF and the London Plan for the implementation of the London Riverside Conservation Park and improved access to the countryside and informal recreation opportunities.

6.4 Environmental Impact

6.4.1 The application has been prepared on behalf of the London Borough of Havering. A number of specialist consultants are involved in this project to ensure minimal impact and maximum benefit is achieved.

6.4.2 The application is accompanied by a detailed Preliminary Risk Assessment for ground contamination and a Design and Access Statement which consider the main impacts of the development. The conclusion of the assessments is that there would be no significant environmental impacts subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the statement and recommendations of the assessments. The main potential impacts identified would be in regard to site contamination and ecology. Planning conditions are recommended that would cover these aspects.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13AU0014.06 - RAINHAM MARSHES FOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

6.4.3 Historically, this area of the marshes has been subjected to a number of sources of pollutants, particularly as a result of nearby industry, with the Murex Diamond identified as a high potential for contamination. The location of the ‘diamond’ and level of contamination poses risk impact to public health at present. The pathway would not direct people directly to the area of contamination, no significant risk is considered to occur, nevertheless precautions are proposed for the ’diamond’ to be ‘capped’ with the soil removed from the drainage ditches. This will be an acceptable form of remediation. Further tests will be required ‘post capping’ to ensure that no public health risk exists subject to condition.

6.4.4 Further contamination is identified within areas of the proposed pathway. Remediation methods to address this are considered to be acceptable subject to condition.

6.4.5 The proposed development will be constructed through an area of SSSI, which contain some of the highest populations of water voles in the UK. Specialist consultants have been involved in this project from an early stage to ensure that minimal ecological impact will occur. The design and construction methods employed by the developer will enhance water vole activity and populations along with other species in the marshes. Consultation on the ecological issues of this proposal with the relevant bodies would ensure that the future management of this site would enable public access through this area of the marshes with minimal ecological impact.

6.4.6 Appropriate fencing and the formation of the new ditches would restrict access by motor cycles into the site and restrict pedestrians from wandering into the marsh area. Consultation on the design of the ditches and associated remediation has been undertaken with the Environment Agency and English Nature to enable the pathway to be constructed with minimal impact to the ecology associated with the Marshes subject to condition.

6.4.7 The materials are proposed to be recycled and locally sourced where appropriate and where available promoting an ecological and sustainable development through the marshes.

6.4.8 The creation of a pedestrian route through the marshes would improve pedestrian an cycle linkages in the area as the existing pathway that runs alongside Ferry Lane would be noisy and distracting due to heavy traffic. Its indirect route does not promote pedestrian traffic and would not satisfy the aims and objectives of the Conservation Park. 6.4.9 The shared pedestrian/cycle use of the existing phase 1 footpath/cycleway has not to staff’s knowledge resulted in any problems. It is staff’s opinion that this would be in the best interest of the public as the design of the pathway provides a large enough area to allow for walkers to step off the track and observe the nature without impacting upon the ecology of the SSSI.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13AU0014.06 - RAINHAM MARSHES FOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

6.4.10 Implementation of motor cycle inhibitors along the pathways are proposed to prevent motor cycle access. Details of these would be subject to further approval by Natural England. 6.4.11 A safety pedestrian crossing will be constructed across Coldharbour Lane that will link Phase 2 with the existing Phase 1. Sign posts and anti-skidding surfaces are to be maintained to ensure a safe crossing. 6.4.12 The proposal would provide a much needed direct pedestrian link from Rainham Village, through Rainham marshes and to the future Nature Conservation Park.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 In conclusion, staff consider that the proposed development would be a beneficial development in this area allowing for safe and convenient pedestrian access through the Rainham Marshes linking Rainham with Purfleet.

7.2 Notwithstanding the considerations outlined in this report, should members be of the view that the development is unacceptable and wish to raise objections to the application, then the response to the LTGDC can be framed in accordance with member's objections.

7.3 Should members agree with staff that no objections be raised, staff recommend that any permission should be subject to the following:

Planning conditions to cover:

· Assessing and dealing with any site contamination; · Measures to minimise the environmental impacts on surrounding areas, including nature conservation interests; · Details of proposed materials; · Details of Bridges; · Details of proposed gates; · Carrying out the development in accordance with the environmental and design standards, remediation measures, requirements and methods of implementing the development contained in the environmental statement; and · Details of signage.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13AU0014.06 - RAINHAM MARSHES FOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 8

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Staff Contact: David Lawn Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone No: 432800 E-mail address [email protected]

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive Background Papers

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

2. The environmental statement submitted with the application

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13AU0014.06 - RAINHAM MARSHES FOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC Rainham Wennington Marshes Proposed & Existing Footpaths

6 .0 4 1 3 e 0 s 0 a U h P

U 00 14 .06 Ph as e 2

P 20 82 .0 P 3 ha se 1

Legend Footpath Status Subject to Approval T o P Completed urf lee Existing path t 15.06 OS MasterMap U00 5 Phase

London Borough of Havering Based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Planning Department 1:20,000 @ A4 Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Mercury House, Mercury Gardens 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead Romford, RM1 3SL to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Havering 100024327 Tel: 01708 434343 Meters abcdefghijklmn MEETING DATE ITEM REGULATORY SERVICES 1 February 2007 13b COMMITTEE

This report is submitted with the agreement of the Chairman as an urgent matter, pursuant to Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: U0015.06 Rainham Marshes

PROPOSAL: Construction of a 400m long x 3m wide shared use footpath/cycle path to the south of the Freightmaster Estate, to include a 2.1m high chainlink fence and motorcycle barriers. (Application reference P2341.06 has been changed to reference U0015.06).

WARD: Rainham / Wennington

SUMMARY

1. The proposal forms Phase 5 of an overall development plan to provide pedestrian access from Rainham to the Nature Conservation Park and along the Thames Riverside as identified as a priority area for the Mayor of London, LDA and Council’s emerging LDF policies and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) wildspace documentation.. The path, which is 400m long is to be constructed to the rear of the Freightmaster Estate along the Thames Embankment.

2. This application will be determined by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation under its planning powers.. The purpose of this report is to seek members’ views on the application which will be included with those of other consultees in the report to the LTGDC planning committee.

3. The application falls to the LTGDC to be determined because of the nature and relationship of the development with the current application for phase 2 and 3 of the footpath through the Rainham Marshes.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item13bU0015.06-RainhamMarshesFootpath_Final_V3_cleared.doc 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

4. Design and Construction of the pathway has been designed through extensive consultation with stakeholders, including the Port of London Authoroty (PLA), Natural England, RSPB and the Environment Agency who support the project.

5. Adequate access in consultation with the PLA ensures that the navigational beacon on the site would remain maintainable.

6. Pedestrian safety is further provided through a proposed chainlink fence to the northern boundary with the Freightmaster Estate.

7. Staff consider that the proposed development would be an acceptable development in this area to allow for safe and adequate pedestrian access through the Freightmaster Estate to the existing pathway to Purfleet allowing a through link from Rainham to Purfleet.

RECOMMENDATION

1) That the committee raise no objections to the proposal and;

2) That the Head of Development and Building Control be authorised to prepare a written response to the LTGDC in accordance with the recommendation or as otherwise resolved by the committee at the meeting.

REPORT DETAIL

1.0 Introduction:

1.1 This report is made to seek the views of members on this application for the proposed development of a 400 metre long by 3m wide shared use cycle/pedestrian path to be constructed to the rear of the Freightmaster Estate along the Thames River frontage. The pathway forms phase 5 of the existing and proposed pathways from Rainham Village through to Purfleet.

1.2 The application will be determined by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation.. The Development Corporation will take these views into account, along with those of other consultees and any local representations, when making its decision on the application.

2.0 Site Description:

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13BU0015.06- RAINHAMMARSHESFOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

2.1 The site encompasses an area of private ownership along the Thames riverside to the rear of the Freightmaster Estate at Rainham Marshes. The proposed pathway is to provide a public right of way through the site as required in an agreement by the landowner in a previous application.

2.2 The pathway will be constructed along an area of the Thames frontage that is predominately flat and will provide a through link from the Tilda Rice factory through to Purfleet.

3.0 Description of proposal:

3.1 The proposal is to construct a 400 metre long by 3 metre wide shared use cycle/pedestrian path that will involve a 2.1m high chain linked fence to the northern boundary with the Freightmaster Estate. Health and safety signage and motorcycle barriers will be installed. The pathway will form an integral part of the National Cycle Route 13 between Tilda Rice and Purfleet and will connect to the proposed Rainham to Coldharbour Lane Cycle/Pedestrian Pathway referred to as Phases 2 and 3.

4.0 History:

4.1 The Rainham Marshes along with the Wennington and Aveley Marshes form one of London’s largest green spaces at 1500 acres. For centuries, the site was preserved as a vast expanse of wetland, grazed by cattle and supports a wide range of rare plants and animal species. The site was designated in 2003 as a Thames Gateway Environment Flagship Project.

4.2 Relevant applications include:

V0001.91 – Diversions of Overhead Powerlines – Approved V0002.91 – Diversions of Overhead Powerlines – Approved P2082.03 – Construction of 3.65km of pathway – Approved U0014.06 – Construction of a 1900m long x 3m wide shared use footpath/cycle path through an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) between Coldharbour Lane and Ferry Lane North, to include 10No. bridged watercourse crossings, motorcycle barriers, pedestrian crossing point with anti-skid paint and signage, excavation of new ditches to create drains/watercourses to provide additional habitat and to improve the security of the adjacent wetland grazing marsh, and the ‘making safe’ of industrial contamination at the Murex Diamond by capping with a minimum of 0.5m of arisings from the excavation of the new ditches.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13BU0015.06- RAINHAMMARSHESFOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

5.0 Consultations and Representations:

5.1 As part of the procedures established by the council for considering applications to be determined by LTGDC, ward councillors in the South Havering area have been consulted.. At the time of preparation of the report no objections from the Councillors had been received.

5.2 The proposed pathway is supported by consultees to the application. The RSPB and Environment Agency views have been incorporated into the design of this project from an early stage. The Port of London Authority have no objection in principle but have raised a general objection to ensure access to a navigational light would be maintained. These representations will be forwarded to the LTGDC along with members' decision on this application.

5.3 Any representations received will be reported at the meeting.

6.0 Policy Considerations & Issues: 6.1 Policy Guidance

6.1.1 Government Guidance in PPS1 (General policy and principles) encourages sustainable development through the planning process. The London Plan supports these principles outlined within the Thames Gateway in policies 3D.12 and 5C. Further guidance is set out in RPG9a (The Thames Gateway Planning Framework) and London Plan Policies 3D.7, 3D10 and 3D.11.

6.1.2 PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) and PPS25 (Development and flood risk) are also relevant along with London Plan Policy 4A.16.

6.1.3 UDP policy ENV1 (Environmental Criteria for New Developments); ENV7 (Nature Conservation) set out the local policies relating to this area. These aim to assist in the protection of the environment in regard to areas of scientific interest, local nature reserves and nature conservation importance. The policies ensure good techniques are implemented in any development. TRN15 applies and aims to provide for safe and convenient cyclist movements. LAR11 aims to improve public access within the countryside.

6.1.4 ENV8 concerns contaminated sites.

6.1.5 Havering’s Local Development Framework has been approved for consultation and is a material consideration. The LDF identifies the site as subjected to flood risk in DC49 and to consider Biodiversity and Geodiversity in policy DC58.

6.1.6 Havering’s Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) sets out Havering's approach to a number of planning policy issues pending the adoption of the Local Development Framework and may give further weight to the LDF. IPG (London Riverside Urban Strategy) identifies the site as part of an area designated as a regionally important ecological and leisure asset for London

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13BU0015.06- RAINHAMMARSHESFOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Riverside. The LTGDC document “Wildspace for a World City” identifies the site as an environmental flagship project and is relevant to this proposal.

6.2 Issues:

6.2.1 The issues are the principle of development, its impact on local environmental conditions predominately public health and safety.

6.3 Principle of the development:

6.3.1 The proposed development is one of a number of projects identified within the development of the future London Riverside Conservation Park. It will provide a cycle/pedestrian path linking the existing pathway along the Thames Riverside from Coldharbour Lane to the west with the existing pathway to Purfleet along the Thames Riverside to the east. The entire pathway will provide pedestrian access from Rainham Village to Purfleet and will continue to open up large parts of the Conservation Park to the public, in particular for those without access to cars and for people with mobility difficulties.

6.3.2 The proposal will contribute to the achievement of policies in both the UDP, emerging LDF and the London Plan for the implementation of the London Riverside Conservation Park.

6.4 Environmental Impact

6.4.1 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement and considers the main impacts of the development. It is concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts. Recognition that the pathway will cross contaminated land has been identified. Planning conditions are recommended that would cover this aspect.

6.4.2 Historically, this area is known as the Freightmaster Estate and has been subjected to landfill in the past. At present, the site is generally occupied by warehousing operations. The pathway is proposed to be constructed over land formerly used as a Victorian waste tip.. Public access to this area is currently restricted due to the site being private property. The construction of the pathway would provide public access over contaminated land and thus potentially increase the risk to public health. However, subject to further studies and the use of appropriate precautions such use is considered acceptable. Suitable conditions are recommended.

6.4.3 The pathway is proposed along the Thames frontage and the Environment Agency have thus raised concern for the impact during construction of wading birds. Conditions are suggested in this regard.

6.4.4 The Port of London Authority presently access the western corner of the site for maintenance of a navigational light. Protection fencing has previously been erected around this and adequate gated access is provided and ensures

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13BU0015.06- RAINHAMMARSHESFOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

this service is retained. Staff consider that the access arrangements to the navigational light would be able to be resolved. 6.4.5 Implementation of motor cycle inhibitors and fencing along the pathways are proposed in favour of the private ownership and for health and safety benefit of pedestrians. Exact details of these would be subject to further approval subject to suggested condition. 6.4.6 A 2.1m chain link fence is proposed along the northern boundary of the pathway with the Freightmaster Estate for health and safety reasons. Although limited time permission has not be recommended, this would be expected to be a temporary measure until such time as the Riverside Park is implemented and open to the public.

6.4.7 The materials are proposed to be recycled and locally sourced where appropriate and where available promoting an ecological and sustainable development through the marshes.

6.4.8 Staff consider that the implementation of this proposal would be a positive development that will, along with application for phase 2 and 3 of U0014.06, allow a pedestrian through link from Rainham to Purfleet for the benefit of the community and in implementing the future London Riverside Park. 7.0 Conclusions

7.1 In conclusion, staff consider that the development would be a beneficial development in the area in allowing a through link along the Thames frontage to existing pathways linking Rainham with Purfleet and providing positive aspirations for the future riverside conservation park.

7.2 Notwithstanding these considerations, should members be of the view that the development is unacceptable and wish to raise objections to the application, then the response to the LTGDC can be framed in accordance with members' objections.

7.3 Should members agree with staff that no objections be raised, staff recommend that any permission should be subject to the following:

Planning conditions to cover:

· Assessing and dealing with any site contamination; · Assessing and dealing with any ecological issues; · Details of proposed materials; · Details of proposed gates and fencing; · Carrying out the development in accordance with the environmental and design standards, remediation measures, requirements and methods of implementing the development contained in the environmental statement; and · Details of signage.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13BU0015.06- RAINHAMMARSHESFOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Staff Contact: David Lawn Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone No: 432800 E-mail address [email protected]

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive

Background Papers

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

2. The environmental statement submitted with the application

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM13BU0015.06- RAINHAMMARSHESFOOTPATH_FINAL_V3_CLEARED.DOC Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

NOTES ABOUT THE MEETING

1. HEALTH AND SAFETY

The Council is committed to protecting the health and safety of everyone who attends meetings of its Committees.

At the beginning of the meeting, there will be an announcement about what you should do if there is an emergency during its course. For your own safety and that of others at the meeting, please comply with any instructions given to you about evacuation of the building, or any other safety related matters.

2. MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES

Although mobile phones, pagers and other such devices are an essential part of many people’s lives, their use during a meeting can be disruptive and a nuisance. Everyone attending is asked therefore to ensure that any device is switched to silent operation or switched off completely.

3. CONDUCT AT THE MEETING

Although members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Committee, they have no right to speak at them. Seating for the public is, however, limited and the Council cannot guarantee that everyone who wants to be present in the meeting room can be accommodated. When it is known in advance that there is likely to be particular public interest in an item the Council will endeavour to provide an overspill room in which, by use of television links, members of the public will be able to see and hear most of the proceedings.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE CHAIRMAN MAY REQUIRE ANYONE WHO ACTS IN A DISRUPTIVE MANNER TO LEAVE THE MEETING AND THAT THE MEETING MAY BE ADJOURNED IF NECESSARY WHILE THAT IS ARRANGED.

If you need to leave the meeting before its end, please remember that others present have the right to listen to the proceedings without disruption. Please leave quietly and do not engage others in conversation until you have left the meeting room. Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

AGENDA ITEMS

1 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman will announce details of the arrangements in case of fire or other events that might require the meeting room or building’s evacuation.

The Chairman will announce the following:

These are the arrangements in case of fire or other events that might require the meeting room or building’s evacuation. (Double doors at the entrance to the Council Chamber and door on the right hand corner (marked as an exit).

Proceed down main staircase, out the main entrance, turn left along front of building to side car park, turn left and proceed to the “Fire Assembly Point” at the corner of the rear car park. Await further instructions.

I would like to remind members of the public that Councillors have to make decisions on planning applications strictly in accordance with planning principles.

I would also like to remind members of the public that the decisions may not always be popular, but they should respect the need for Councillors to take decisions that will stand up to external scrutiny or accountability.

2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS (if any) - receive.

3 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Members are invited to declare any interests in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting. Members may still declare an interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

4 MINUTES

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 December, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS – See Index and Reports – Applications within statutory limits Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

6 P2175.06 – 89- 95 & R/O 97 NEW ROAD, RAINHAM

7 P2452.06 - LAND AT CORNER OF NEAVE CRESCENT AND FARRINGDON AVENUE, HAROLD HILL

8 U0006.06 – BEAM REACH BUSINESS PARK 5, PLOTS 8 AND PART 7, RAINHAM

9 P1013.06 & C0006.06 – HIGHLANDS, 59 MAIN ROAD, ROMFORD

10 P2421.06 – R/O 97-103 ESSEX ROAD, ROMFORD

11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS – See Index and Reports – Applications outside statutory limits

12 PLANNING CONTRAVENTION – 3 CHURCH LANE, WENNINGTON

13 URGENT BUSINESS

To consider any other item in respect of which the Chairman is of the opinion, by reason of special circumstances which shall be specified in the minutes, that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

Stephen Evans Chief Executive 77M

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday 14 December 2006 (7.30 p.m. – 7.45 p.m.)

Present:

COUNCILLORS: 9

Conservative Group Roger Evans (Chairman), Jeffrey Brace, David Grantham, Robby Misir, Barry Oddy and +Fred Osborne

Residents’ Group Linda Hawthorn

Rainham Residents’ Coral Jeffrey Group

Labour Group Tom Binding

An apology for absence was received from Councillors Barry Tebbutt and Steve Whittaker.

+ Substitute Member: Councillor Fred Osborne (for Councillor Barry Tebbutt)

Unless otherwise indicated all decisions were agreed with no vote against.

1member of the public was present.

There were no declarations of interest.

Through the Chairman announcements were made about emergency evacuation arrangements and the decision making process by the Committee.

130 P0694.06 – PHILIP HOUSE, ROYAL JUBILEE COURT, 45-47 MAIN ROAD, GIDEA PARK, ROMFORD – Refurbishment of existing bed- sits to form 19 one-bedroom flats. New lift extensions and extension to car parking facility

The report was submitted with the agreement of the Chairman as an urgent matter as it was deemed necessary to obtain Committee authorisation at the earliest opportunity.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to th conditions as set out in the report.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\minutes\2006\061214minutes.doc 78M

Regulatory Services Committee, 14 December 2006

131 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND AGREEMENTS

At the 7 September 2006 meeting of this Committee, Members noted a report summarising the position on legal agreements and planning obligations, bonds, restriction on age of occupation and travel plans plus various other types of issue.

The report updated the Committee on the current position on the progress of agreements and unilateral undertakings authorised by this Committee for the period 2001 to 2006 in the table attached to the report.

The Committee NOTED the report and the information contained therein.

132 PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS RECEIVED, PUBLIC INQUIRIES/HEARINGS AND SUMMARY OF APPEAL DECISIONS

The report accompanied a schedule of appeals received (64) and a schedule of appeal decisions, received between 1 August and 17 November 2006.

The summary of decisions identified the staff recommendation and whether the decision was delegated or taken by the Committee. These were listed in Appendix 1 to the report

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

133 SCHEDULE OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

The Committee considered and noted the schedules detailing information regarding enforcement notices updated since the meeting held on 7 September 2006.

Schedule A showed notices currently with the First Secretary of State (the Planning Inspectorate 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.

Details were given about how an appeal can be lodged, the grounds for an appeal, and these were shown abbreviated in the schedule.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\minutes\2006\061214minutes.doc 79M

Regulatory Services Committee, 14 December 2006

The Committee NOTED the information in the report.

134 PROSECUTIONS UPDATE

The report updated the Committee on the progress and/or outcome of several recent prosecutions undertaken on behalf of the Planning Service.

Members were informed of a recent successful prosecution by building control against a resident of the borough which had resulted in a significant fine and award of costs. Members congratulated both Planning and Legal services for their recent successes.

The Committee NOTED the report:

135 MONITORIING OF PROGRESS OF THE ACTION PLAN RESPONDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AUDIT COMMISSION INSPECTION OF THE PLANNING SERVICE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2004

At the meeting of the Regulatory Services Committee on 16 December 2004 Members noted the findings of the Audit Commission Inspection of Planning Services.

The Committee also noted the Action Plan prepared by staff in response to the Audit Commission recommendations. Members had since monitored progress on a quarterly basis. The Environment Overview Scrutiny Committee on 27 January 2005 noted the position.

Additionally, in line with the decision of the Committee on 27 April 2006, the response to the ODPM Best Value Standards Authorities 2005/06 report was also appended as an addendum to the Audit Commission Action Plan.

The Committee NOTED the report

136 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

It was RESOLVED that the public be now excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that it is likely that, in view of the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of Paragraphs 7 and 14 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\minutes\2006\061214minutes.doc 80M

Regulatory Services Committee, 14 December 2006

137 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT: SCHEDULE OF COMPLAINTS

Attached to the report was a schedule listing, by Ward, all the complaints received by the Planning Control Service over alleged planning contravention’s for the period from 1 August 2006 to 17 November 2006.

Responses were given on a number of questions raised about particular complaints and where a response was not given staff undertook to advise the Members of the current situation.

The Committee NOTED the report and AGREED the actions being taken.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\minutes\2006\061214minutes.doc 5

Regulatory Services Committee

1 February 2007

WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

Page Plan No. Ward Address No.

1-5 P2328.06 St Andrews Kings Head Public House 189 High Street Hornchurch 5-13 P2332.06 Heaton Land adjacent Harold Wood Hall Widecombe Close & Colchester Road Romford 13-21 P2352.06 Cranham 39 Laburnham Gardens Cranham Upminster 21-28 P2425.06 Squirrels 96-100 Heath Park Road Heath Romford REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2328.06

WARD: St Andrew's Date Received: 11th December 2006

ADDRESS: Kings Head Public House 189 High Street Hornchurch

PROPOSAL: Revised application for 3 parking bays with external A3 dining area and replacement of side window with door to side elevation REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

APPLICATION NO: P2328.06 ADDRESS: Kings Head Public House, 189 High Street

Recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

SITE DESCRIPTION: The site comprises the Kings Head Public House in Hornchurch a Grade II Listed Building. The site is located on the North side of High Street, just East of the White Hart/Station Lane round about. Parking to the Public House is located to the West/North (side/rear) of the Public House in allocated parking bays, vehicular access and egress is via High Street or Fentiman Way.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is for the creation of an outdoor seating area within the curtilage of the Public House. A previous application for a similar area was refused under Planning Application P1612.06. This current proposed outside seating area would take up a reduced (from the previous application) component of the existing car park to the West of the application site. The application further proposes the replacement of a side window with a door to give access to this proposed seating area. Vehicular access to the High Street would be closed via a wall/railing combination along the back of the footpath and a pedestrian gate provided.

The revised outside seating area would cover an area of 62.81sq.m compared to the 96.46 sq.m of the previous application. A gap of 1.4m will be retained to the side of this seating area which is to be utilised as an access passage. The submitted plans show 10 tables to the previous 15 tables and will now provide 30 seats compared to the previous 48 seats. The additional space gained by reducing the size of the seating area will be utilised to provide three additional parking spaces.

HISTORY: Various Planning Applications relating to the use of the building as a Public House with the most recent being:

* P1612.06 - Change of use from carpark to external seating area and replacement of side window with door to side elevation - Refused

* L0010.06 - Listed building consent for replacement of window with door at side, closure of 2No.

comrep_in Page 1 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2328.06 internal doors, erection of internal partitions and erection of wall, railing and fencing at rear - Approved

CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Notification letters were sent to 137 neighbouring properties and 5 letters of objection have been received. The issues raised in these letters can be summarised as follows: * Car Parking * Noise and anti-social behaviour * Congestion

CALL IN: This application has been called in by Cllr. Mylod. No reason for the call in has been given. STAFF COMMENTS:

This proposal is a resubmission of a larger scheme which was refused under Planning Application P1612.06 for reasons of amenity and parking deficiancy.

The issues in relation to this revised proposal are the principle of development; form of development; design and appearance; impact on the Queens Head and adjoining Listed Building; amenity issues and highways/parking implications. Relevant UDP policies are ENV1, ENV4, SHP2, TRN18 and Appendix 3 - Car parking standards. PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) is also relevant.

Policy ENV4 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan states that, in relation to buildings and structures which are included as listed buildings on the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest (as set out in schedule 2), the Council will: a) Normally oppose the demolition of any listed building; b) Only permit the alteration or extension of a listed building (including internal alterations) where its architectural and historic character appearance, fabric and integrity are protected and maintained; c) Ensure that new development will not adversely affect the setting of a listed building. In addition, in the interests of conserving buildings of special architectural or historic interest, the Council may consider more favourably change of use which could be contrary to policies elsewhere in the plan. The only external alterations are to replace a window with a door in the Western side elevation of the existing building as well the erection of a wrought iron fence to the front facing High Street as well as a close boarded timber fence to the side and rear to define the external seating area. The replacement door would be of a suitable material and would provide access to the external seating area. The wrought iron railings will subject to approval by the Local Planning Authority upon submission of material samples. As such it is considered that the external alterations are acceptable and would not detract from the external character of the Listed Building.

Indeed Listed Building Consent has already been granted for these works, but not planning permission which is to be considered here.

The internal changes would be related to the change of use of the property which enables a reorganisation of rooms on the ground floor and first floor of the existing building. Two doors would be blocked up internally and the functional space within the building would be increased by reducing

comrep_in Page 2 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2328.06 the size of the existing bar area as well as by utilising the first floor area for seating.

Taken together the various alterations are considered to be acceptable in terms of the effect it would have on the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building and, it is also considered that its fabric and integrity would not (subject to details being acceptable) be diminished by the proposed alterations. Nonetheless, details relating to the various alterations are needed and suitable conditions are required which will also ensure that features of interest are retained and will be attached to any grant of consent.

It is not considered that the changes to the windows which are located to Western side elevation of the building would have any adverse impact on the external appearance of the Listed Building nor on the group of Listed Buildings to the degree that this would be considered harmful.

The proposed outside seating area consists of a number of permanent structures to form the designated terrace/seating area. The new external seating area would be created out of a part of the existing car park to the Western side of the application site.

The issue therefore, is the effect of the structures to enable the external drinking area on surrounding residential amenity. It is proposed that an area of some 62.81sq.m is to be predominantly filled with tables and chairs defined by 1.5m high wrought iron railings facing High Street as well as a close boarded timber fence to the side and rear of the proposed seating area.

The proposed materials will ensure an appearance, which will harmonise satisfactorily with the surroundings nor detract from the setting of the Listed Buildings. The nearest residential property is immediately adjacent as well as opposite, to the West and South of the area. The impact of the development in terms of visual amenity is considered acceptable.

The new proposed door which will be replacing an existing window to the side elevation of the existing building would in principle also be acceptable as it is necessary to gain access to the proposed outside seating area.

AMENITY ISSUES

Policy ENV1 considers that the Council will seek to ensure that all new developments including change of use do not have unreasonably adverse effects on the environment by reason of noise, vibration, fumes, smells, hours of operation, airbourne or waterbourne pollution or contamination.

The street scene and surrounding area, is characterised by a variety of commercial and residential developments. Residential units are located above shops in the parade adjacent, opposite as well as to the rear of the application site in Goldsmere Court. As such it needs to be considered whether the resultant effect of formally erecting chairs and tables in this location would create unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. Although the proposed smaller outside seating area would be likely to result in some increase in noise and general activity, (which is usually associated with such outside seating areas/establishments), Members should note that this is a Town Centre location and garden/external seating is a feature of this type of use. Indeed it is ancillary to the use and planning permission would not be needed for ancillary seating per se were it not for the enabling

comrep_in Page 3 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2328.06 works of the patio, fencing, and so forth. In any event control can be exercised through a condition restricting evening use beyond 06:00pm.

These proposed measures would ensure that any increased noise levels can be contained to be similar to those which are currently experienced from the existing Kings Head Public House. As such it is considered that the erection of chairs/tables in this location would not be materially harmful.

Policy TRN 18 states that "Urban developments generally result in demands for associated car parking. Provision of car parking, according to the Council's standards, will contribute to the satisfaction of the demands that such development generate and is thus likely to reduce the extent of on-street car parking and consequent congestion. Developments should not be permitted to inflict additional burdens or penalties on the residents of nearby houses or users of adjacent facilities".

Again it should be noted that this is a Town Centre location with public parking available nearby in the Fentiman Way Parking Area. Given that the ancillary external seating area would not require planning permission (in the curtilage of an A3 use as an ancillary activity) it is considered that there is no justification for requiring additional on site parking to be provided.

CONCLUSION

The revised reduced size external seating area is in keeping with Policies ENV1, TRN2 and TRN18 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan. It is further also considered that the proposal would not result in significant alterations to the property which is a Listed Building. Listing is not meant to preclude any alterations and it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy ENV4 in retaining the special architectural and historic interest of the Listed Building. It is considered that the proposed alterations would be acceptable, subject to details.

RECOMMENDATION Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:

1. SC4 (Time limit) 3yrs 2. SC10A (Matching materials and samples) 3. SC32 (Accordance with plans)

comrep_in Page 4 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2328.06

4. The external seating area shall not be used for the purposes hereby permitted other than between the hours of 10:00am and 18:00pm seven days a week, without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:-

To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control in the interests of amenity, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1.

1. INFORMATIVE:

Reason for approval:

The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policy ENV1, ENV4, TRN2 & TRN18 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06

WARD: Heaton Date Received: 11th December 2006

ADDRESS: Land Adj. Harold Wood Hall Widecombe Close & Colchester Road Romford

PROPOSAL: Construction of single storey dwelling containing eight single occupancy flats with staff & training room. Adjustment to landscaping, car parking & bin store Revised plans received 22/01/2007

RECOMMENDATION

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The 0.17ha site comprises an area of land currently utilised for car parking and amenity space in association with existing residential development at Harold Wood Hall.

Harold Wood Hall comprises two separate buildings. 1-21 Harold Wood Hall (hereafter referred to as Building A), which is located due north west of the application site, provides accommodation for the homeless and consists of 21 no. studio units of one and two bedrooms. 22-38 Harold Wood

comrep_in Page 5 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06

Hall (hereafter referred to as Building B), which is located due south west of the application site, provides affordable rented accommodation and consists of 17 no. one bed flats.

The south eastern boundary of the plot is defined by a 2m high boundary wall, the other side of which is the A12 Colchester Road.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

This is a full planning application which proposes the erection of a single storey building containing 8 no. one bed flats together with a staff office and training room. The Applicant advises that the complex would provide 'move-on' accommodation for those individuals with learning disabilities who require assistance with re-integrating into society, having previously been resident in a more formal care environment.

The building is roughly rectangular in shape and measures 37m wide by a maximum of 15.8m deep by 5.1m high. The pitched roof form is broken up by 4 no. projecting hipped roofs. The building is proposed to be externally finished with timber boarding, facing brickwork, and slate tiles.

The building is located a maximum of 18.5m away from Building A, a maximum of 17.2m away from Building B and 14m away from the 2m high boundary wall.

HISTORY

P0781.91 - Conversion to 11 no. 1 bedroom units, 3 no. 2 bedroom units and 7 no. bedsits - Approved. This permission relates to Building A.

P0579.93 - New building to provide 17 no. 1 bedroom flats and associated car parking and amenity space - Approved. This permission relates to Building B.

CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Notification letters have been sent to 45 neighbouring properties. 5 letters have been received in response to notification, objecting to the proposal on the grounds, inter alia, of:

- exacerbation of existing car parking problems in Widecombe Close and insufficient car parking spaces for the proposed flats - the inadequate and poorly located replacement bin store - loss of privacy - increased security risk - noise and disturbance generated by future occupants - loss of amenity space - loss of outlook - incapacity of existing infrastructure to deal with additional flats - quality of the boundary treatment with the school - unknown nature of the occupants of the flats

Neighbours have also been renotified following the receipt of revised plans. The notification period

comrep_in Page 6 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06 has to expire and Members will be updated at the meeting of any representations received.

OFFICERS' COMMENTS

The main issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development and the allocation of the site, the effect of the development upon the character of the street scene, the impact upon the amenities of existing adjoining residential occupiers, amenity space and car parking provision for both the existing and proposed occupiers, highways considerations, air quality and noise.

Policies ENV1 (Environmental Criteria for New Developments), HSG1 (Housing Priority), HSG2 (Sites for Residential Development), HSG5 (Range and Availability of Housing), HSG6 (Specialised Needs Housing), TRN2 (Effect of Development on Public Transport and Roads) and TRN18 (Car Parking) of the Havering Unitary Development Plan are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application together with Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Amenity Space and the Interim Planning Guidance on Housing Density. Policies 2A.1, 3A.1, 3A.2, 3A.4, 3A.10, 3C.1, 3C.20, 3C.21, 3C.22 of The London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) are also material considerations, together with PPS1 'Delivering Sustainable Development', PPG3 'Housing' and PPG13 on 'Transport'.

Principle of the development and the allocation of the site

The site to which this application relates is identified by Policy HSG2 as part of a wider site which has capacity for at least 10 dwellings. This allocation was made in 1993. At that time, planning permission had already been granted for the conversion of the original Harold Wood Hall building (Building A) into 21 units (reference P0781.91). Later in 1993, further planning permission was granted for the erection of a second building (Building B) which contained 17 units (reference P579.93). In theory therefore, the additional capacity sought by Policy HSG2 has already been provided. This is not to say however that other proposals for additional residential development on this site would be unacceptable in principle.

The site is located within a low ranked Public Transport Accessibility Level Zone (PTAL 1-2), as defined by the Interim Planning Guidance on Housing Density. Within this zone, housing density of between 30-50 dwellings per hectare is anticipated. The site identified comprises as area of 0.17ha. The proposal would produce a density of 47 dwellings per hectare. This is within the density range identified and is therefore considered acceptable.

The effect of the development upon the character of the street scene

Policy ENV1 seeks to ensure that new developments are satisfactorily located and are of a high standard of design and layout, which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and does not prejudice the environment of the occupiers or adjacent properties.

It is not considered that the proposed building would appear unduly discordant in the street scene at this point. At single storey (5.1m high), the building would be much lower than Buildings A and B, which are approximately 12m and 10m high respectively. Whilst the building would have a notable footprint, this is materially no greater that the footprint occupied by Building A. The mass of the

comrep_in Page 7 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06 building is broken up by 2 no. projecting elements together with a recessed entrance on the front elevation and 2 no. projecting hipped roofs to the rear elevation. The siting of the building would facilitate the creation of a quasi-courtyard.

Given the height of the boundary wall which sits alongside the A12 and the distance the proposed building is set away from it, it is considered that very limited views of the building would be achieved from Colchester Road. Whilst Building A is not a listed building, it is a building which has a distinct and pleasant traditional character and the low profile nature of the proposed building would not unduly prohibit views of it.

Whilst a row of established trees would be removed to accommodate the development, these are not considered to be worthy of preservation. Planted in a vertical row traversing the site in a north west/south east manner, they offer little screening to the existing development from the A12 Colchester Road. Replacement planting, which would provide a more effective buffer, can be secured via condition and this is recommended below.

The impact upon the amenities of existing residential occupiers

Turning to the general impact of the proposal upon the amenities of the existing residential occupiers in Harold Wood Hall, given the distances between and the orientation of the buildings together with its single storey nature, it is not considered that the building would appear unduly overbearing. Whilst the proposal would materially alter the outlook currently enjoyed by the existing occupiers, on balance, this loss is not considered to be sufficiently harmful to warrant a refusal of the proposal in this instance, especially given the wider outlook of the A12 Colchester Road and the Gallows Corner Retail Park.

Again, in light of the distances between the buildings and the presence of intervening car parking spaces and the access road, it is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable loss of privacy.

Furthermore, it is neither considered that the proposal would generate unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance beyond those currently experienced. Indeed, the site is located immediately adjacent to the busy A12 Colchester Road, where noise and disturbance is generated on a daily basis.

Turning to the impact of the proposal upon the amenities of the occupiers of Widecombe Close, given the nature of the client group proposed to occupy the building and the likely low level of associated car ownership, it is not considered that the additional traffic movements generated by the proposal would cause an unacceptable level of additional noise and disturbance within Widecombe Close as to harm residential amenity.

Whilst the relocated bin store to the rear of nos. 7 and 9 Widecombe Close is considered to be unacceptable because of its proximity to the rear boundaries of these properties, the bin store is outside of the application site and therefore, does not fall to be considered as part of this application.

Amenity space and car parking provision for both the existing and proposed occupiers

comrep_in Page 8 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06

Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Amenity Space recommends the provision of 40sq.m per 1-bed flat and 50sq.m per 2-bed flat.

At present, Building A benefits from an amenity space of approximately 451sq.m and Building B, an amenity space of 281sq.m. The application site partly comprises a further shared amenity area of circa 750sq.m. In total, this existing level of provision generally accords with current policy. In order to accommodate the proposal however, the existing level of provision would be comprised to the extent that each unit within Building A would benefit from 21.5sq.m of amenity space and each unit within Building B, 16.5sq.m of amenity space. This level of provision is clearly below that normally required.

Whilst PPG3 (together with the SPG on Residential Amenity Space and the IPG on Housing Density) advocates the best use of previously developed land and flexibility in the application of amenity space standards, this should not be at the sacrifice of the amenities of occupiers. However, the Applicant advises that the amenity spaces currently available for residents are infrequently used. On balance, taking into account evidence provided by the Applicant, the quality of the amenity space to be lost and that private amenity space would continue to remain available for the existing residents of Buildings A and B to the rear of those buildings (rather than to the front, in general public view), it is considered that sufficient justification exists in this instance to permit a relaxation of policy.

Turning to the proposal itself, an amenity area of 340sq.m is required to serve the needs of the occupants in accordance with the standards set out by the SPG. In this instance, an amenity area of 565sq.m is proposed. This is clearly in excess of that normally required and no objection is raised in this regard.

Insofar as car parking provision is concerned, given site's location within a low ranked PTAL Zone, 2-1.5 car parking spaces are required for each unit.

At present, 29 no. car parking spaces serve Building A and 25 no. spaces serve Building B. This level of provision also generally accords with current policy. In order to accommodate the proposal however, a number of car parking spaces would be lost. The proposal itself would be served by 7 no. car parking spaces together with 2 no. disabled parking spaces. Evidence put forward by the Applicant again suggests that the existing car parking facilities are under utilised and given the client group of the proposed building, the pursuant car parking provision would be superfluous to requirements. In total therefore, 32 no. car parking spaces would be available for the residents collectively. This equates to less that 1 space per residential unit.

On balance, taking into account evidence provided by the Applicant and the pursuant level of car ownership associated with the development, Staff consider that sufficient justification exists in this instance to permit a relaxation of policy.

Highway Considerations

Staff do not consider that any highways issues arise from the proposal. The internal layout of the site is considered to be satisfactory.

comrep_in Page 9 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06

Air Quality, Noise and Contaminated Land

The proposed building and its amenity area would be located within very close proximity of the A12 Colchester Road. In order to protect the amenities of the future occupants of the building, it is essential to ensure that the building is sufficiently attenuated to prohibit the transmission of noise and is appropriately designed to ensure minimal exposure to air pollution levels. In order to achieve this, conditions 6, 8 and 9 set out below are recommended. In addition, due to the presence of a potential source of contamination on or near to the site, staff also consider it appropriate to recommend a condition regarding the submission of a Phase 1 Desktop Study prior to commencement, condition 10 set out below refers.

Conclusion

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal generally satisfies the relevant criteria of Policies ENV1, HSG1, HGH2, HSG5 and HSG6 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan. Whilst it does not strictly comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Amenity Space nor Interim Planning Guidance on Housing Density, given the circumstances discussed above, it is considered that an objection would be difficult to substantiate in this instance. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

That authorisation be given for the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission on expiry of the publicity period subject to the conditions below, provided that no representations are received which raise any new material considerations.

RECOMMENDATION Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:

1. SC4 (Time limit) 3yrs 2. SC06 (Parking provision) 3. SC09 (Materials) 4. SC11 (Landscaping) 5. SC32 (Accordance with plans) 6. The building shall be so constructed as to provide sound attenuation of not less than 45dB(A) against internally generated noise and 62dB(A) against impact noise to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent noise nuisance to adjoining properties in accordance with the recommendations of Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 Planning and Noise.

comrep_in Page 10 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06

7. No construction works or deliveries into the site shall take place other than between the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No construction works or deliveries shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:-

To protect residential amenity, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1. 8. Prior to the commencement of any development an assessment shall be undertaken of the impact of road noise emanating from Colchester Road upon the development in accordance with the methodology contained in the Department of Transport/Welsh office memorandum, "Calculation of Road Traffic Noise",1988. Following this, a scheme detailing measures, which are to protect occupants from road traffic noise shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented prior to occupation.

Reason:-

To protect future residents against the impact of road noise in accordance with Department of Environments, Planning Policy Guidance Note 24, " Planning & Noise" 1994, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1.

9. Prior to the commencement of the development, an air quality report shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall detail a) the area within the boundary of the site, which may exceed relevant national air quality objectives; b) specify how the application will address any potential to cause relevant exposure to air pollution levels exceeding the national air quality objectives; c) identify areas of potential exposure and; d) detail how the development will reduce its impact upon local air pollution.

Reason: To protect the amenities of future occupants and/or neighbours and in the interests of the declared air management area.

comrep_in Page 11 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06

10. Prior to the commencement of any works pursuant to this permission the development shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority;

a) A Phase I (Desktop Study) Report documenting the history of this site, its surrounding area and the likelihood of contaminant/s, their type and extent incorporating a Site Conceptual Model. b) A Phase II (Site Investigation) Report if the Phase I Report confirms the possibility of a significant risk to any sensitive receptors. This is an intrusive site investigation including factor such as chemical testing, quantitative risk assessment and a description of the sites ground conditions. An updated Site Conceptual Model should be included showing all the potential pollutants linkages and an assessment of risk to identified receptors. c) A Phase III (Risk Management Strategy)Report if the Phase II Report confirms the presence of a significant pollutant linkage required remediation. The report will comprise of two parts:

Part A - Remediation Statement which will be fully implemented before it is first occupied. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing to the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. The Remediation Scheme is to include consideration and proposals to deal with situations where, during works on site, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified. Any further contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.

Part B - Following completion of the remediation works a Validation Report must be submitted demonstrating that the works have been carried out satisfactorily and remediation targets have been achieved.

d) If during development works contamination should be encountered which was not previously identified and is derived from a different source and/or of a different type to those included in the contamination proposals then revised contamination proposals shall be submitted to the LPA ; and e) If during development work, site contaminants are found in areas previously expected to be clean, then their remediation shall be carried out in line with the agreed contamination proposals.

For further guidance see the leaflet titled. Land Contamination and the Planning Process.

Reason:-

To protect those engaged in construction and occupation of the development from potential contamination.

comrep_in Page 12 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2332.06

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), the building hereby permitted shall be used solely for supported accommodation and for no other purpose whatsoever including any other use within Class C2 of the Order, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To restrict the use of the building to one compatible with the surround area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise control over any future use not forming part of this application.

1. INFORMATIVES:

1. The Applicant is advised that the development may encroach onto adopted Highway land. Prior to the commencement of the development, an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act for works on the Public Highway may need to be entered into. For further details, please contact the Traffic and Engineering Section.

2. Reason for approval:

The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policies ENV1, HSG1, HSG2, HSG5, HSG6, TRN2 and TRN18 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and its Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Amenity Space and Interim Planning Guidance on Housing Density.

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06

WARD: Cranham Date Received: 8th December 2006

ADDRESS: 39 Laburnham Gardens Cranham Upminster

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of one detached and two semi detached chalets with integral garages REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06 ADDRESS: 39 Laburnham Gardens

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the

comrep_in Page 13 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06 report.

SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is situated on the northern side of Laburnham Gardens, in close proximity to greenbelt, and adjacent to the neighbouring redeveloped site at number 41.

The site is currently occupied by a single storey detached bungalow, and associated parking and amenity.

The surroundings are characterised predominantly by detached and semi-detached bungalows, with the land adjacent occupied by new development comprising chalet bungalows. Two storey houses are situated toward the east further away from the greenbelt.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The application seeks consent to demolish the existing bungalow on site, and replace it with a detached and semi detached pair of chalet bungalows. The proposed new dwellings each offset from the boundaries by 1m to the side and measure 13.3m in depth of footprint. The properties are 5.7m wide, with three bedrooms, bathroom and en-suite facilities on the first floors, and garage, kitchen, living rooms and hall on the ground floors, with the semi-detached pair incorporating an additional dining area.

The applicant proposes to divide the plot to form three curtailages, each 6.7m and 7.7m wide and for a depth of garden that is currently maintained for the existing bungalow.

The applicant proposes a single integral garage for each dwelling with additional hardsurfaced driveway.

The Council is in receipt of this application as a resubmission of a previously refused scheme to address the reasons for refusal. The previous scheme was refused on the grounds of cumulative height, bulk and design adversely impacting on surrounding streetscene, and resulting in an intrusive and overbearing development on neighbouring properties. The revised scheme reduces the height of the dwellings from 2 storey properties to chalet bungalows with dormer projections, removes the front facing juliette balconies, reduces the number of bedrooms from 4 to 3 per dwelling.

RELEVANT HISTORY: P1425.06 - Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of one detached and two semi detached houses with integral garages - Refused

CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Neighbour notification letters have been sent to 29 local addresses and 12 letters of objection have been received. Objections are mainly the same as those against the previous scheme, which are raised on the following summarised grounds: - Increased traffic - Out of character - Inadequate turning provision in close - Capacity of local services and amenities

comrep_in Page 14 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06

- Height and roof line of proposals - Trees - Ownership and registry disputes - Boundary disputes - Loss of privacy - Loss of light

Two consultations have been returned as follows; - Environmental Health - Request a condition regarding site investigation and contaminated land and request a condition regarding noise attenuation. - Building Control - Note further requirements before the development can achieve building regulations.

STAFF COMMENTS: The main issues to be considered by Members in this case are the principle of development, the impact on local character and the streetscene, density and site layout, the impact on amenity and parking and highway issues. Policies ENV1, HSG1, TRN2 and Appendices 2 & 3 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan are relevant. Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Amenity Space and Supplementary Design Guidance are also material planning considerations, as are the provisions of the London Plan, PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPG3 (Housing).

Principle of development:

Policy HSG1 states that where sites which are suitable for housing become available outside the Green Belt, employment areas, commercial areas and shopping centres, the Council will not normally permit their use for any other purpose. The site lies within a predominantly residential street and currently comprises a residential bungalow. The residential use of the site is, therefore, acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant planning policies. In terms of Policy HSG5 it is considered that the proposal contributes to the particular need for homes for small households. In respect of PPG3 the proposal contributes to maximising the use of urban land.

The proposed dwellings would contribute to the Mayor's London Plan objective of increasing the overall supply of housing, specifically relevant are Policies 3A.1 and 3A.2.

The application would comprise the demolition of the existing bungalow on the site. While the bungalow appears to be in a structurally sound condition, the building is not of any particular architectural or historic merit and no in principle objection is therefore raised to its demolition.

Impact on local character and streetscene:

Policy ENV1 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan seeks to ensure that all new developments are satisfactorily located and are of a high standard of design and layout. In this respect it is important that the appearance of new developments is compatible with the character of the local street scene and the surrounding area. In this case the surrounding character is drawn from bungalow and chalet bungalow developments, situated between an original bungalow from the early 1950's to the western side at number 37 and the new chalet bungalow developments on the eastern boundary at number 41. As such no objection is raised in principle to the redevelopment of the site

comrep_in Page 15 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06 for three chalet bungalows, in a similar style to the development having taken place on the adjacent property.

Density and site layout:

In response to both the London Plan and PPG3, the Council has adopted Interim Planning Guidance for Housing density. This includes the Havering Density Matrix, which seeks to guide higher density of development to those parts of the Borough having good access to public transport. The proposed development has a density of 36 dwelling per hectare, within the 30-50 range appropriate for this locality.

The proposals provide an amenity space of more than 100% of the foot print area, for a depth that currently exits at 21m resulting in approximate 160m³ of amenity space per dwelling. Therefore, the proposed amenity space is considered reflective of the locality and no concerns are raised in respect of SPG Amenity Space or policy ENV1 in this matter.

The proposed new dwellings incorporate a single garage and hardsurfacing to the front, therefore providing two spaces per dwelling albeit in tandem. This is considered acceptable in relation to the standards outlined in Appendix 3, and thus no concerns are raised by Officers in this respect.

Impact on amenity:

The proposed new dwellings would be located towards the front of the site in the approximate position of the existing dwelling. Therefore impacts to neighbouring properties opposite and behind the site remain largely unaltered. In respect of adjacent occupiers, flank windows are noted, and considered to serve non-habitable rooms. The depth of the footprints proposed is unchanged from the previous application, however, the proposals reduce the height of the revised proposals, and hip the development away from adjacent properties. Members may consider that on balance these revisions are sufficient to mitigate previous impacts on outlook and amenity. Staff are of the opinion that the built form now proposed would not be unacceptably dominant or an obtrusive feature in the rear garden environment, and that the proposal would have no unacceptable impact upon the amenity for the occupiers of these properties in terms of loss of light.

Further the internal configuration of the proposed properties is such that windows proposed in the flank elevations could be conditioned with obscure glazing to prevent undue harm in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. Complimenting a screen fencing condition.

Highway/parking issues:

The proposed new dwellings incorporate a single garage and hardsurfacing to the front, therefore providing two spaces per dwelling albeit in tandem. This is considered acceptable in relation to the standards outlined in Appendix 3, and thus no concerns are raised in this respect.

The proposals do not include sufficient detail regarding sight splays and access. This is safeguarded by way of condition.

Sustainability:

comrep_in Page 16 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06

The applicant has not submitted a sustainability statement to accompany the application, therefore were Members minded to recommend approval, then submission of further details in this respect can be required by way of condition to ensure compliance with the Councils Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainability Issues.

Other matters:

The majority of issues raised by neighbour representations have been discussed throughout the report. Issues relating to drainage are dealt with under the Building Regulations. Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration. Construction hours are addressed by way of condition and Environmental Health Legislation.

In respect of the street tree immediately in front of number 39, should this require removal in order to develop the site, then the applicant should contact the Councils Streetcare department regarding it's removal.

Conclusion:

The proposal is considered to by staff as acceptable, in principle subject to Members judgement on the proposed siting, design and appearance in respect of the character of the area or the existing street scene.

It is not considered that the proposal would have a significant impact upon the amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties. There are no significant loss of light or privacy implications and staff consider that the revised proposal would not represent an overbearing addition for the neighbouring properties, however this is a matter for Members Judgement.

The parking provision for the proposed development is considered to be acceptable. There are no other highways or parking implications as a result of the proposal.

Having regard to Unitary Development Plan policies and all other material considerations staff recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:

1. SC4 (Time limit) 3yrs 2. SC09 (Materials) 3. SC32 (Accordance with plans) 4. SC34 (Obscure glazing) 5. SC08 (Garage) - restriction of use 6. SC13 (Screen fencing)

comrep_in Page 17 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06

7. Prior to the commencement of any works pursuant to this permission the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority;

a) A Phase I (Desktop Study) report documenting the history of the site, its surrounding area and the likelihood of contaminant/s extent and type incorporating a Site Conceptual Model.

b) A Phase II (Site Investigation) Report if the Phase I Report confirms the possibility of a significant risk to any sensitive receptors. This is an intrusive site investigation including factors such as chemical testing, quantitative risk assessment and a description of the sites ground conditions. An updated Site Conceptual Model should be included showing all the potential pollutant linkages and an assessment of risk to identified receptors.

c) A Phase III (Risk Management Strategy) Report if the Phase II Report confirms the presence of a significant pollutant linkage requiring remediation. The report will comprise of two parts:

Part A Remediation Statement which will be fully implemented before it is first occupied. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing to the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. The Remediation Scheme is to include consideration and proposals to deal with situations where, during works on site, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified. Any further contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.

Part B Following completion of the remediation works a Validation Report must be submitted demonstrating that the works have been carried out satisfactorily and remediation targets have been achieved.

d) If during development works any contamination should be encountered which was not previously identified and is derived from a different source and/or of a different type to those included in the contamination proposals then revised contamination proposals shall be submitted to the LPA; and

e) If during development work, site contaminants are found in areas previously expected to be clean, then their remediation shall be carried out in line with the agreed contamination proposals.

For further guidance see the leaflet titled Land Contamination and the Planning Process.

Reason:

To protect those engaged in construction and occupation of the development from potential contamination.

comrep_in Page 18 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06

8. No construction works or deliveries into the site shall take place other than between the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No construction works or deliveries shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:-

To protect residential amenity, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1. 9. The building shall be constructed so as to provide sound attenuation of not less than 45dB(a) against internally generated noise and 65dB(A) against impact noise to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

To prevent noise nuisance to adjoining properties in accordance with the recommendations of Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 Planning and Noise 1994.

10. The proposed development shall provide vehicle accesses of a minimum 3m in width for a single access, and 6m in width for a linked access, maintaining clear ground pedestrian splays of 2.1m x 2.1m either side of the accesses.

Reason:

In the interest of highway safety and in order that the development accords with policy TRN2, TRN18 and Appendix 2 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan.

comrep_in Page 19 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06

11. Before development is commenced, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority making provision for a Construction Method Statement to control the adverse impact of the development on the amenity of the public and nearby occupiers. The Construction Method statement shall include details of:

a) parking of vehicles of site personnel and visitors; b) storage of plant and materials; c) dust management controls; d) measures for minimising the impact of noise and ,if appropriate, vibration arising from construction activities; e) predicted noise and, if appropriate, vibration levels for construction using methodologies and at points agreed with the Local Planning Authority; f) scheme for monitoring noise and if appropriate, vibration levels using methodologies and at points agreed with the Local Planning Authorities; g) siting and design of temporary buildings; h) scheme for security fencing/hoardings, depicting a readily visible 24-hour contact number for queries or emergencies; i) details of disposal of waste arising from the construction programme, including final disposal points. The burning of waste on the site at any time is specifically precluded.

And the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and statement.

Reason:-

To protect residential amenity, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1. 12. Prior to the commencement of works, a sustainability statement assessing the measures to be incorporated into the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order that the development accords with the objectives of the London Plan and Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainability Issues.

comrep_in Page 20 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2352.06

1. INFORMATIVES:

1. Should the proposed development result in the requirement for the street tree in the highway adjacent number 39 to be removed then please contact Barbara Washington on 01708 434343 regarding the removal.

2. Reason for approval:

The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policies HSG1, HSG5, ENV1, TRN2, TRN18 and Appendices 2 and 3 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06

WARD: Squirrels Heath Date Received: 19th December 2006

ADDRESS: 96-100 Heath Park Road Romford

PROPOSAL: Proposed residential development with 8 flats and parking to rear

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

SITE DESCRIPTION: The application site is located on the southern side of Heath Park Road. It is located outside the Romford and Gidea Park PTAL zones and currently comprises a semi-detached two storey pair of properties and an end of terrace two storey property. The site extends alongside neighbours adjacent at Heath Park Road and behind properties in both Salisbury Road and Margaret Road. This area does not fall under any special area of designation within the borough. No.96 Heath Park Road is currently occupied as a builder's merchant with residential flats above and numbers 98 and 100 in residential use.

The property's garden area extends significantly towards the rear for a depth of 22m at the minimum, and 37m at the maximum.

The surrounding area comprises predominantly residential two storey properties with some ground floor retail. Additionally the property opposite is converted into a day nursery. Squirrels Heath Primary School is located in close proximity off Salisbury Road.

Several properties nearby have been sub-divided into flats, and further, at 66-70 Heath Park Road,

comrep_in Page 21 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06 a new block of flatted development has taken place.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing semi-detached pair and end of terrace property and the re-development of the site.

The application seeks consent for a two storey flatted block with development in the roof space. The proposal incorporates eight one-bed units in total, two on the ground floor with an underpass for vehicles, three on the first floor, and a further three in the loft space.

The site comprises 945m² of which 230m² forms amenity space to the rear of the block.

The proposals comprise a two storey block, with roof accomodation, reaching 9m in height at the maximum, with a hipped roof and openings on the northern and southern (front and rear elevations) with some secondary and bathroom glazing on the western flank elevation. The front and rear elevations incorporate sheltered balcony features on the first floor and juliette balconies in the loft space. Front and rear facing openings are to be covered by a flat roof canopy at 5.5m high front and rear.

The block is proposed to be set off the boundaries adjacent to number 94 and 102 Heath Park Road by 1m each side.

To the rear of the site, there would be provision of 7 car parking spaces, plus one disabled bay to the front of the property. Access is proposed from Heath Park Road adjacent to number 94. The existing outbuilding is proposed to remain to the rear of the site, with no use or details submitted in this respect. The outbuilding does not form part of this application but was formerly used in conjunction with the builders merchant as ancillary storage/workshop space.

RELEVANT HISTORY: Most relevant: P0543.06 - 8 flats and separate mews building - Refused Number 96: - L/ROM225/64 - Office extension - App - L/HAV1366/68 - 1st floor ext. Builders Office. Workshop & stores - Ref - L/HAV263/73 - 1st floor ext to Office Building - App - L/HAV224/76 - Enlargement of existing vehicular crossover - App - P0657.93 - Pitched roof to side extension - App - P1381.96 - Temp use (up to 3 years) as 1st floor domestic flat - W/D - P0202.97 - C/U (for 3 years) from office to 1 bed flat - App Number 98: - 1669/76 - Convert existing to 2 self contained flats - App - 1266/79 - Garage - App Number 100: - P1632.89 - Vehicular access - App

CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Neighbour notification letters have been sent to 41 local addresses and to date 2 letters of objection have been received. Objections are raised on the following summarised grounds:

comrep_in Page 22 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06

" Streetscene implications with the loss of the terrace. " Insufficient parking and potential overspill into the surrounding areas " Highways safety " Height of the development " Out of character " Loss of privacy

STAFF COMMENTS: This is a revised application following the refusal of the previous application on the grounds of density, insufficient amenity, impact to the streetscene by way of height, bulk and mass, adverse impacts to neighbouring properties as a result of depth of development and proximity to the boundaries, extensive hardsurfacing to the front of the property, depth of development and cramped over development of the plot. The application was also refused on the grounds that the proposed mews building was unacceptably cramped and would give rise to inter-looking between residential units.

The revised scheme reduces the height of development by 2.7m, reduces the depth of development by 1m, and removes the mews building from the application. This results in 8 one bed units rather than the previous 8 two bed units and one bed mews building. The main issues to be considered by Members in this case are the principle of development, the impact on local character and the streetscene, density and site layout, the impact on amenity and parking and highway issues. Policies ENV1, ENV10, HSG1, TRN2 and Appendices 2 & 3 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan are relevant. Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Amenity Space, and Supplementary Design Guidance are also material planning considerations, alongside Interim Planning Guidance on Housing Density, as are the provisions of the London Plan, PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPG3 (Housing).

Principle of development:

Policy HSG1 states that where sites which are suitable for housing become available outside the Green Belt, employment areas, commercial areas and shopping centres, the Council will not normally permit their use for any other purpose. The site lies within a predominantly residential street and currently comprises mainly residential properties. There is nearby precedent in the area for conversion to flats, therefore the residential use of the property is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant planning policies.

The proposed units would contribute to the Mayor's London Plan objective of increasing the overall supply of housing, specifically relevant are Policies 3A.1 and 3A.2.

The applicant proposes the demolition of the existing properties, including the semi-detached pair and end of terrace property. The buildings proposed for demolition are not of any particular architectural or historic merit and as such no objection in principle is raised to its demolition.

The current use is as a builders yard, a non-conforming use and ENV10 encourages residential development on such sites in order to minimise potential for any continuing and potentially worsening impact.

comrep_in Page 23 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06

IMPACT ON LOCAL CHARACTER AND STREETSCENE: ENV1 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan seeks to ensure that all new developments are satisfactorily located and are of a high standard of design and layout. In this regard it is important that the appearance of new developments is compatible with the character of the local street scene and the surrounding area. In this instance the surrounding area comprises a variety of two storey properties, predominantly residential, with some surrounding use as a nursery and school and a recently constructed flatted block in near proximity.

The proposed new development would be of a similar height as adjacent development, with the maximum ridge height 1m above that of adjacent properties. The width of the block at 20m is not dissimilar to terraces in the locality.

The applicant has reduced the height of the scheme by 2.7m from the previous application, whilst reducing the depth by 1m and incorporating the hipped roofline. The applicant has also removed balconies facing the street, and incorporated architectural features into a previously blank flank, these revisions are considered by staff to comprise sufficient revision to mitigate previous concerns in respect of the streetscene, notwithstanding this, this is a matter for members judgement.

Also in respect of streetscene, the applicant has increased the areas of soft landscaping, and resituated one of the front parking bays to the rear of the site, providing a softer landscape frontage setting for the development, in order to address the previous reason for refusal in this respect.

DENSITY: In response to both the London Plan and PPG3, the Council has adopted Interim Planning Guidance for Housing density. This includes the Havering Density Matrix, which seeks to guide higher density of development to those parts of the Borough having good access to public transport. In this instance the application site falls outside of all designated PTAL zones where there is an indicative density in a suburban area of 30-50 units per hectare.

This proposal achieves a density of 85 units per hectare, which is above the density usually expected in the surrounding areas. Notwithstanding this Interim Planning Guidance on Housing Density allows greater densities subject to delivery of a high standard of design and layout and also where redevelopment of non-conforming or bad neighbour uses takes place. This is also reflective of the objectives of policy ENV10. The proposed development results in the redevelopment of an area previously utilised as a builders merchant and it is a matter for Members to decide whether a sufficiently high standard of design and layout has been achieved with this application.

AMENITY SPACE: The applicant seeks to provide 8 one bed units. The usual requirement for amenity for a single bed unit is 40m², as such the applicant should provide by policy standards 320m² of amenity space. The applicant proposes provision of 230m² within the existing scheme. This is below the provision usually expected for this scale of development. However, this is an approximate measure, and does not include additional amenity areas in balconies. Staff consider that an element of amenity space is lost to the rear of the property to provide adequate parking and access. This is to the expense of amenity provision, but results in an amenity area that is easily accessible by occupiers and independent of the parking area. It is a matter of judgement for Members whether this level of provision would be acceptable. Notwithstanding this, staff consider that, on balance the proposals

comrep_in Page 24 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06 would provide an acceptable level of amenity space which would be equivalent to levels accepted for similar developments elsewhere.

SITE LAYOUT: The proposed flatted block occupies a footprint similar to that maintained by existing development, at a similar height, albeit in a continuous block. The scheme incorporates an underpass for vehicles to access a parking area to the rear. It is for Members to consider whether this is an acceptable layout, being not dissimilar to developments in the locality.

The proposed internal layout raises no concerns, with bedroom areas above those of attached units, and lounge/kitchen areas separated from sleeping areas both adjacent, above and below.

IMPACT ON AMENITY: The proposed development extends by 2m beyond the rear building line of adjacent properties, offset from the boundary by 1m. This cuts slightly across the notional 50 degree angle set out in Supplementary Design Guidance. The applicant proposes to mitigate this by rounding off the corners at first floor and above to enable sufficient outlook in respect of policy criteria. The acceptability of this depth of development is a matter of judgement for Members taking into account the extent to which the proposals exceed guidance, the reductions made from the previous application, examples of development in the locality and potential adverse impact to neighbouring properties.

In respect of overlooking, the flank openings proposed raise little concern serving either bathroom areas or as secondary light sources, further it is considered that these openings could be obscure glazed by way of condition.

The proposed rear balconies are designed to include enclosures, restricting outlook to across the site at the rear, and limiting potential overlooking of neighbouring properties. This coupled with boundary treatment and screening is considered acceptable, and Members may consider the resultant loss of privacy to neighbouring properties is no greater than that which may currently exist.

HIGHWAY/PARKING ISSUES: The development would provide 8 off-street parking spaces, one of which is a disabled space to the front of the property. This equates to one parking space per unit. This is inkeeping with standards set out in the Housing Density Guidance and the London Plan where flats should incorporate one space per unit or less within PTAL zones. This is reflective of national policy moving away from car ownership to aid congestion and the greater encouragement of use of public transport.

A further material consideration are the twenty-two flats that were approved in 2000 under application P1746.00 at 66-70 Heath Park Road, in close proximity to the current proposals, with one space for each unit provided.

CONCLUSIONS:

The proposed residential use of the site is acceptable in principle and no objections are raised to flatted development in the locality. This is a revised proposal following an earlier refusal on amenity, scale and over-development grounds. It is a matter of judgement for members whether the revised

comrep_in Page 25 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06 scheme would now be acceptable.

Staff consider that the revised main form of development is acceptable, being of a more suitable depth and height, and inkeeping with the aims and objectives of policy ENV1. The proposed setting for development, impact to neighbouring amenity, with revised amenity and parking provision may be considered by Members as within acceptable limits.

The proposal is in close proximity to a larger development approved in 2000, with similar ratios of parking and amenity space provision. Additionally the development results in the loss of a presently non-conforming bad neighbour use in a residential area.

Having regard to Unitary Development Plan policies and all other material considerations staff consider that on balance the proposal is acceptable and it is recommended that Members grant planning permission subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:

1. SC4 (Time limit) 3yrs 2. SC09 (Materials) 3. SC32 (Accordance with plans) 4. SC34 (Obscure glazing) 5. SC46 (Standard flank window condition) 6. SC5 (Parking standards) 7. No construction works or deliveries into the site shall take place other than between the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No construction works or deliveries shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:-

To protect residential amenity, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1. 8. SC14 (Sight lines) 9. SC11 (Landscaping) 10. SC13 (Screen fencing)

comrep_in Page 26 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06

11. The buildings shall be so constructed as to provide sound attenuation of not less than 45dB(A) against the internally generated noise to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:-

To prevent noise nuisance to adjoining properties in accordance with the recommendations of Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 "Planning & Noise" 1994, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1.

12. Before development is commenced, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority making provision for a Construction Method Statement to control the adverse impact of the development on the amenity of the public and nearby occupiers. The Construction Method statement shall include details of:

a) parking of vehicles of site personnel and visitors; b) storage of plant and materials; c) dust management controls; d) measures for minimising the impact of noise and ,if appropriate, vibration arising from construction activities; e) predicted noise and, if appropriate, vibration levels for construction using methodologies and at points agreed with the Local Planning Authority; f) scheme for monitoring noise and if appropriate, vibration levels using methodologies and at points agreed with the Local Planning Authorities; g) siting and design of temporary buildings; h) scheme for security fencing/hoardings, depicting a readily visible 24-hour contact number for queries or emergencies; i) details of disposal of waste arising from the construction programme, including final disposal points. The burning of waste on the site at any time is specifically precluded.

And the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and statement.

Reason:-

To protect residential amenity, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policy ENV1. 13. Prior to the commencement of works, a sustainability statement assessing the measures to be incorporated into the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order that the development accords with the objectives of the London Plan and Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainability Issues.

comrep_in Page 27 of 28 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2425.06

14. Prior to completion of the works hereby permitted, details for the provision of cycle storage for a minimum of one bicycle per unit shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be provided and permanently retained thereafter.

Reason:-

In the interests of providing a wide range of facilities for non-motor car residents, in the interests of sustainability.

1. INFORMATIVE:

Reason for approval:

The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policies ENV1, HSG1, HSG5, TRN2, TRN18, Appendix 2 and 3 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Design Guidance.

comrep_in Page 28 of 28 COMMITTEE DATE ITEM

REGULATORY SERVICES 1 February 2007 COMMITTEE 6

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: P2175.06 – 89- 95 & R/O 97 NEW ROAD, RAINHAM.

Proposal: Development of site to provide residential accommodation for 21 dwellings and associated parking (date received 06/11/2006).

Ward: South Hornchurch

SUMMARY

The proposal is for the residential redevelopment of land on the north side of New Road at its junction with Askwith Road. The application proposes the erection of a part two-storey and part three-storey block on the site comprising 21 flats. Access to the site would be from Askwith Road.

The proposal would involve the demolition of a variety of existing commercial/industrial buildings within the site.

It is considered that policy objectives would be met and approval is recommended subject to a legal agreement covering affordable housing, education contribution and A1306 environmental improvements.

s:\bssadmin\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item6p2175.06newroad.doc 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that either:

A That the Committee agree that the proposal is unacceptable as it stands but would be acceptable subject to the applicants entering into a legal agreement to secure the following:

£25,644 required towards educational needs generated by the development in accordance with the Council’s Supplementary Guidance for Education Contributions.

£35,676 required towards the A1306 environmental improvement scheme in accordance with the Council’s Supplementary Guidance for the New Road Employment Area.

6 of the units to be provided as affordable housing, comprising 4 no. 3-bed units for social housing and 1no. 2-bed and 1 no. 1-bed unit for intermediate housing, in accordance with the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance for Affordable Housing. The Council to have nomination rights on all six units.

That staff be authorised to enter into such agreement with the applicants covering the issues set out above and subject to completion of the planning agreement in accordance with the planning obligations set out above by 6th February 2007, to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. SC04 (Time limit);

2. SC6 (Car Parking);

3. SC9 (Details of Materials);

4. SC11 (Landscaping);

5. SC34 (Obscure Glazing);

6. SC52 (Road Noise Impact Assessment);

7. SC57 (Wheel Washing);

8. SC58 (Refuse Storage);

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

9. SC59 (Cycle Storage)

10. SC60 (Site Investigation);

11. SC62 (Hours of Construction);

12. SC122 (Archaeological Investigation)

13. Non-Standard Condition – Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing all boundary treatments of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall then be implemented and completed prior to the first occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

14. Before the building hereby permitted is first occupied, provision shall be made within the site for adequate refuse recycling in accordance with standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority; thereafter such provision shall be made permanently available for use unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that domestic refuse is disposed of in a sustainable manner.

15. SC14 (Sight Lines)

16. Prior to the commencement of any works pursuant to this permission the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority;

A Phase I (Desktop Study) report documenting the history of the site, its surrounding area and the likelihood of contaminant/s extent and type incorporating a Site Conceptual Model (see Informative title Site Conceptual Model).

A Phase II (Site Investigation) Report if the Phase I Report confirms the possibility of a significant risk to any sensitive receptors. This is an intrusive site investigation including factors such as chemical testing, quantitative risk assessment and a description of the sites ground conditions. An updated Site Conceptual Model should be included showing all the

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

potential pollutant linkages and an assessment of risk to identified receptors.

A Phase III (Risk Management Strategy) Report if the Phase II Report confirms the presence of a significant pollutant linkage requiring remediation. The report will comprise of two parts:

Part A – Remediation Scheme which will be fully implemented before it is first occupied. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing to the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. The Remediation Scheme is to include consideration and proposals to deal with situations where, during works on site, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified. Any further contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.

Part B – Following completion of the remediation works a ‘Validation Report’ must be submitted demonstrating that the works have been carried out satisfactorily and remediation targets have been achieved.

If during development works any contamination should be encountered which was not previously identified and is derived from a different source and/or of a different type to those included in the contamination proposals then revised contamination proposals shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority ; and

If during development work, site contaminants are found in areas previously expected to be clean, then their remediation shall be carried out in line with the agreed contamination proposals.

Reason: To protect those engaged in construction and occupation of the development from potential contamination.

17. SC43 (Noise level)

18. SC44 (Noise Insulation – dwelling)

19 SC32 (Accordance with approved plans)

20. SC13 (Screen walling)

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

21. Prior to the commencement of development, a sustainability statement, which shall include a methodology, including timescale, for a sample to demonstrate compliance with an EcoHomes rating of Very Good or better, shall been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall outline how the development will meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction to incorporate the seven measures identified in Policy 4B.6 of the London Plan and shall be required to demonstrate that the development will achieve an EcoHomes rating of Very Good or better. The developer shall provide a copy of the final Building Research Establishment (BRE) certificate confirming that the development design achieves a minimum EcoHomes rating of Very Good. The development or relevant phase thereof shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the agreed Sustainability Statement and if required by the Local Planning Authority, EcoHomes Post Construction Assessment shall be carried out on a sample of the development in accordance with the agreed methodology to ensure that the required minimum rating has been achieved.

Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainability in accordance with the Councils Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainability and Policies 4A.7 of the London Plan.

22. Prior to the commencement of development, an Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall incorporate an energy demand assessment and shall detail the energy efficiency design measures and renewable energy technology to be incorporated into the final design of the development. The statement shall demonstrate how the development will displace at least 10% of carbon dioxide emissions through on site renewable energy measures and energy efficient technology above and beyond Building Regulation requirements. The development or relevant phase thereof shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the agreed energy statement and the measures identified therein.

Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainability in accordance with the Councils Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainable Design and Construction and Policies 4A.7, 4A.8 and 4A.9 of the London Plan.

INFORMATIVES:

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

INFORMATIVE 1: In submitting samples of materials required by condition No. 3 the Council encourages the use of high quality materials which are of particular importance for this prominent corner plot.

INFORMATIVE 2: The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that access and facilities will be required for disabled people.

INFORMATIVE 3: The London Borough of Havering fully supports Secured by Design accreditation where appropriate. It is recommended that the applicant consider applying for this award, which is a national police initiative, designed to encourage the building industry to adopt crime prevention measures and create safe, secure and sustainable environments.

INFORMATIVE 4: The Council encourages the developer to apply the principles of the “Considerate Constructors Scheme" to the contract for the development.'

INFORMATIVE 5: REASON FOR APPROVAL: The proposed scheme for residential units is considered in policy terms to be acceptable. The proposal reflects current Government policy and advice on creating sustainable development in terms of design and materials, the efficient use of land and encouraging residential development with easy access to facilities and does not have a materially adverse impact on residential amenity. The proposal is therefore, considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policies ENV1, HSG1, HSG7, EMP7, TRN2, and TRN18 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and policies 4B.1, 4B.3, 4A.7, 4A.8 and 4A.9 and 5C.2 of The London Plan and policy SSA 12 of the Site Specific Allocation within the Local Development Framework.

OR

B That in the event that the planning agreement is not completed in accordance with the planning obligations set out in Recommedation A by the expiry of this application 6th February 2007, planning permission be refused under the delegated powers of the Head of Development and Building Control for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing within the development contrary to Interim Planning

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Guidance for Affordable Housing. The proposal fails to make provision for a 70:30 split between social housing and intermediate forms and no acceptable case has been put forward to justify the failure to do so.

2. The proposal fails to make provision for the payment of a contribution towards the cost of additional school places within the Borough, contrary to Interim Planning Guidance for Educational Needs Generated by New Development.

3. The proposal fails to make provision for the payment of a contribution towards the cost of the A1306 environmental improvement scheme in accordance with the Council’s Supplementary Guidance for the New Road Employment Area.

REPORT DETAIL

1. SITE DESCRIPTION:

1.1 The application site is a rectangular parcel of land covering an area of 0.24 hectares and located on the northern side of New Road (A1306) at its junction with Askwith Road. The site has a frontage to New Road of 33 metres and a return frontage to Askwith Road of 61 metres. The site is bounded to the north by a residential bungalow and to the west by a vehicle tyre and battery fitter and double glazing manufacturer. To the east of the site is a pair of semi-detached properties in residential use (Nos. 97 and 99 New Road).

1.2 The site contains a number of single and two-storey buildings, currently vacant but formerly in light industrial and car sales use. No.97 New Road (one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings), is owned by the applicant and part of the existing rear garden forms part of the application site.

1.3 The site is within the New Road Rainham Employment Area and is identified in the Unitary Development Plan and in Supplementary Planning Guidance to Policy EMP7 as being suitable for housing.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

2.1 This proposal involves the demolition of existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes.

2.2 By way of background, this application is a resubmission following refusal of planning application P0135.06; an application for 23 residential flats

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 8

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

(13 two-bedroom units and 10 one-bedroom units) There have been a total of five applications for residential development on the site (P1915.01, P1263.01, P0468.02, P1342.03 and P0135.06) with schemes ranging from 21 – 36 flats. Four of the applications were refused planning permission and one was withdrawn. The reasons for refusal related to design, appearance and impact. This proposal seeks to overcome those objections.

2.3 This application is for the erection of 21 flats, comprising eight 1- bedroom flats, nine 2-bedroom units and four 3-bedroom units.

2.4 The development would result in a building wrapping along Askwith Road and New Road. The building would be part two-storey and three-storey along Askwith Road and three storey reducing to two-storey along the New Road frontage as it abuts No. 97 New Road. It would be two-storey where it is adjacent to No.2 Askwith Road (a detached bungalow).

2.5 The proposal would be served by a total of 23 car-parking spaces accessed from Askwith Road. The site currently has one existing access to each of the New Road and Askwith Road frontages. The car parking spaces would be located on either side of the access into the site. Cycle bays are also proposed adjacent to the bin store which is located along the boundary of the rear-facing amenity area.

3. HISTORY:

No.91 New Road: ES/HOR/213/52 – Class III use – Approved; ES/HOR/292/52 – Factory – Approved; ES/HOR/1210/58 – Boundary Fence – Approved; ES/HOR/14/64 – 3 storey showroom & basement – Approved; L/HAV/2058/71 – Factory & warehouse – Approved; A/HAV/134/74 – Illuminated trade sign – Approved; L/HAV/34/71 – Light industrial buildings – Refused; L/HAV/1515/84 – Display / sale of motor cars – Refused, Appeal Dismissed; L/HAV/1658/85 – Display / dale of motor cars – Approved.

No.93 New Road: ES/HOR/253/50 – Shop& store – Approved; ES/HOR/775/63 – Betting office – Refused; ES/HOR/518/64 – Betting office extension – Refused.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 9

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

Nos. 89 – 97 New Road

P1915.01 – Redevelopment of site to provide two, three and four storey buildings containing 36 dwellings and associated car parking and amenity space - outline – Dismissed on appeal

P1263.01 – 25 residential units – Withdrawn

P0468.02 – Redevelopment of site to provide 2 and 3 storey buildings containing 21 dwellings and associated car parking – outline – Refused

P1342.03 – Redevelopment to provide 24 residential units - Refused – Dismissed on appeal

P0135.06 - Development of site to provide residential accommodation for 2 dwellings and associated parking - Refused

4. CONSULTATIONS / REPRESENTATIONS:

The application has been advertised as a major development and neighbours have been notified. Five letters of representation have been received. Four of the letters object to the proposals on the grounds of previous refusals on the site, detrimental to highway safety and will exacerbate existing poor highway layout leading to more accidents, excessive bulk, scale, building line; insufficient car parking; loss of privacy and overdevelopment. One letter of representation raises no comments.

5. STAFF COMMENTS:

5.1 The issues to be considered are the principle of residential development, layout and form of development, impact on character and amenity and highways issues. Policies ENV1, EMP7, TRN2, TRN18 and Appendix 3 of the UDP are relevant as is Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Amenity Space; Interim Guidance on Education needs; Sustainability, Housing Density, Affordable Housing and the London Riverside Urban Strategy. PPG3 (Housing) and PPG13 (Transport) are material considerations, as are policies 4B.1, 4B.3 and 5C.2 of the London Plan and policy SSA 12 of the Site Specific Allocation Document of the Havering Local Development Framework.

5.2 As previously stated there have been a number of applications for residential development on the site, two of which were dismissed on appeal. These decisions are material considerations in the assessing this revised application. In the most recent refused application, P0135.06, the grounds for refusal were related to inadequate provision of

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 10

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

amenity space and the bulk and density of the development proposed. This revised application seeks to address these issues.

6. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.1 The application site is located within the New Road Employment Area and is covered by the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance to Policy EMP7 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy EMP7 states that within this employment area planning permission will only be granted for a Class B1 business use or a residential use which achieves a satisfactory standard of amenity. Supplementary Guidance provides further detail on this policy and indicates that in relation to residential schemes:

· encouragement will be given to large, attractive and integrated schemes; · encouragement will be given to comprehensive development of blocks of land; · if comprehensive development is not possible layout of new development should not prejudice development of adjoining land; · access to the A1306 should be minimised; · all schemes should be of a high standard of design, layout, materials and landscaping; · development will be required to make a financial contribution to the A1306 environmental improvement scheme; · development may be required to make a contribution towards affordable housing and education provision.

6.2 In addition the site is covered by the London Riverside Urban Strategy; Interim Planning Guidance. This reinforces the aims of the New Road Supplementary Planning Guidance. It advocates a design led-approach to development and enhancement of the London Riverside and emphasises the importance of high quality forms of development. Emerging policy within the Local Development Framework Site Specific Allocations Document policy SSA 12 – Rainham West is also applicable. Within this document residential, ancillary community, retail, recreation, educational and leisure uses and appropriate employment uses are likely to be allowed.

6.2 The principle of residential development is therefore supported by UDP policies as well as Havering’s LDF document. The principle of residential development was not a reason for refusal of previous applications or appeals.

7. DENSITY

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 11

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

7.1 The applicants have noted Members concerns over the previous scheme and have reduced the scheme by 2 units and in addition changed the mix of development. Albeit the altered mix now includes four 3 x bed units, the scheme now represents a development of 87 dwellings per hectare (dph). The previous scheme amounted to some 95 dph. The Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) on housing density indicates an appropriate density of development to be 30 – 50 dph. Whilst it is noted that the proposal still has a higher density than that recommended in the IPG, the IPG does allow flexibility to be exercised to enable the successful development of commercial sites in residential areas but provided the scheme has a correspondingly high quality design.

7.2 Although the site is remote from Rainham railway station it is served by regular bus services. Members will also be aware that flatted development usually results in higher densities than dwelling houses.

7.3 Members should note that in dismissing (P1915.01) which equated to 142 dph the Inspector considered that the numbers of flats proposed, 33, accorded with advice contained in the then Draft London Plan. The basis of the appeal dismissal was not density per se but rather the harm caused by the development’s physical impact. In the nearby Manser Works scheme (reference P1261.02) planning permission was granted for 109 dph. More recently planning permission was granted for a residential development at 173 New Road (P0302.06), amounting to 128 dph.

7.4 Staff consider that the proposed density is acceptable in principle subject to consideration of the proposal’s physical impact and quality of design.

8. DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

8.1 The proposed development involves the erection of a part two and part three storey hipped roof building occupying an irregular shaped footprint. The design has been revised from the previous refusal and is less bulky particularly when viewed from Askwith Road where the northern section of the frontage is now limited to two-storey. As it wraps around New Road the building’s height increases to three storeys creating a landmark and visual interest. It then reduces to two storeys next to the residential properties of 97 and 99 New Road.

8.2 The design details have also been revised from the previous submission to reflect an external appearance that more sympathetically complements the character of the locality. The design incorporates a mixture of coloured render and buff stock brickwork similar to the appearance of nearby houses.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 12

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

8.3 The proposed two storey element of the development would be some 2m forward of the building line of Nos. 97 and 99 New Road, with a flank to flank distance of some 2m. The three storey element would be 14m from the common boundary with these neighbouring properties. It is not considered that the forward projection would be harmful in terms of its appearance in the streetscene as there is a varied building line within this part of New Road. Although the immediate neighbouring property, No. 2 Askwith Road, is a bungalow it is not considered that the two/three-storey element along Askwith Road would be unduly harmful to the setting of that property. As with the previous scheme there would be a separation of 22m between the flank wall of the proposed development and No.2 Askwith Road. Staff are of the opinion that the revised form of development is sympathetic in scale and integrates well with the surrounding area and at the same time is considered likely to achieve a landmark corner feature at the junction of New Road and Askwith Road.

9. AMENITY ISSUES

9.1 Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Amenity Space seeks 40 square metres amenity space per one-bedroom, 50 square metres per two-bedroom flat and 100 square metres per three-bedroom unit should be provided. This would equate to 1270m2. A main amenity area of 660m2 is provided immediately to the rear of the building. The amenity space provision is similar to that proposed under the recently refused scheme.

9.2 Under this revised scheme the applicants have sought to enhance the quality of this communal area to include areas of denser planting resulting in a better screened development. The revised scheme provides landscaping not only along the perimeter of the site but also within the site. It is considered that with careful planting and the use of the good quality materials proposed the scheme would be likely to achieve a high standard of layout and landscaping. The scheme also makes use of different ground finishes, which seek to reduce the visual impact of the development and proposed hard surfacing. Areas of dedicated ground floor terraces have also been designed and designated for individual units. The revised amenity area improves the setting of the building, the amenity of the intended residents as well as the amenity of residential properties that adjoin the site.

9.3 Staff are of the opinion that despite the shortfall the proportion of building to openness on the site is acceptable; the calculated amenity space is "useable" and provided in a single area.

9.4 It should be noted that in dismissing the previous appeal (P1342.03) the Inspector noted the need for flexibility when considering the adequacy of

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 13

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

amenity space. Staff consider the amenity space would provide an adequate setting for the building, amenity space for the residents and would not compromise the living conditions of adjoining residents.

9.5 Turning to the relationship with neighbouring properties 47m would be achieved between the rear main wall of the development and the flank wall of 2 Askwith Road. Accordingly it is not considered that unacceptable harm would result to adjoining properties by way of overshadowing or loss of outlook. Window openings proposed in the northern flank wall closest to No. 2 Askwith Road would serve bedrooms, landings and bathrooms at a distance of between 22 and 23m which staff consider acceptable. No windows are proposed in the flank wall elevation facing No. 97 New Road.

9.6 Windows are proposed in the rear elevation and overlooking could potentially occur, however, as the part of the proposal immediately adjacent to this property is of two-storey level it is not considered that there would be any more harm than that from its attached neighbour at No.99. This relationship, which is similar to the previous application, is considered to be acceptable. It complies with SPG, which requires the distances between the backs of houses and or flats existing or proposed to not be normally less than 30m. Given these distances and the nature of the majority of the rooms proposed that would face these existing residential properties i.e. bedrooms/bathrooms, this element of the proposal would not result in any material overlooking or loss of privacy to these neighbouring properties. Staff are satisfied with the impact resulting from the revised scheme.

9.7 As with the previous scheme the proposal includes an area of car parking for 23 vehicles next to the common boundary with No. 2 Askwith Road. Following discussions between the applicant and immediate residents in order to overcome concerns relating to noise and disturbance the applicants propose a 2m high wall along this boundary and along the boundary with 99 New Road. In addition areas of landscaping are proposed along the perimeter of the site, which together with the wall act as buffers against the noise of vehicles, reduce the impact from car headlights penetrating to the adjacent boundaries and car fumes. Members should also note that a driveway and garage serving No. 2 Askwith Road are immediately next to the common boundary. The proposals are, therefore, considered to be acceptable and would not result in material harm in terms of noise and disturbance to this neighbouring property. It should be noted that this element of the scheme was not a reason for refusal under the P0135.06 (the last scheme).

9.8 Staff consider that the development’s impact would be acceptable; although now vacant the site has a commercial use, in line with SPG for

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 14

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

the New Road area. Residential development is the preferred use here and Members should give appropriate weight to this. The development is likely to result in a reduction in commercial traffic generation from that historically generated by the site particularly in terms of HGV vehicles, which would be removed altogether. Staff consider that the scheme has benefits over the potential re-uses of the site, should a worse case scenario arise and the site is reoccupied for legitimate commercial uses.

10. HIGHWAY ISSUES

10.1 An upgraded access would be taken from Askwith Road.

10.2 UDP car parking standards require the provision of 38 spaces to serve the proposed development. 23 spaces have been provided for the 21 flats at a ratio of 1:1 plus two visitor spaces.

10.3 The site is located 1.9km from Rainham Station and 2.4km from Dagenham Dock Station. The PTAL index rating for the site would be 1-2 and as such, it should be considered as being remote from public transport.

10.4 In dismissing P1915.01, which also provided a ratio of 1:1 parking, the Inspector stated that "Given the thrust of current Government policy to reduce parking provision and dependence on the private car, I consider the available public transport links to be sufficient in this location to justify a lower parking provision that that required by the Council.” Members accepted this position and did not object to the ratio of 1:1 parking when considering subsequent applications on this site. Accordingly, given the advice in national planning guidance which post dates the UDP and is a material consideration in this case, staff are of the view that like the previous applications the level of parking provision is acceptable.

11. OTHER MATTERS

11.1 The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement. Amongst other things the applicants state that the scheme will be designed to achieve the minimum EcoHomes certification of “very good”.

11.2 The applicant has incorporated secure by design advice.

11.3 Interim Planning Guidance for education requires residential developers to make a contribution for the capital infrastructure of schools required to meet the demand from occupiers of new housing within the Borough. The applicant is aware of the need to make a contribution of £25,644, to be covered by planning obligation.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 15

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

11.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance to Policy EMP7 advises that developments will be required to make a financial contribution towards the A1306 environmental improvement scheme. In this case a financial contribution of £35,676 is required.

11.5 In accordance with Interim Planning Guidance development of 15 units or more would require 35% of the units to be provided as affordable housing, split 70:30 between social housing and intermediate housing. The guidance allows for a flexible approach to provision depending on site circumstances. In this case following negotiations with the Council’s Housing Section, only six units (28%) have been offered, but these include four three-bed units. These would better help to meet the borough’s housing needs than the seven one-bed units (35%) that might otherwise have been offered. In terms of habitable rooms the 6 units offered would provide over 35%. Therefore, in these circumstances staff consider that the six units offered are acceptable and would meet the overall objectives of the IPG. A planning obligation between the applicant and the Council would be required to be entered into in order to achieve these aspects. The applicant is aware of this and is willing to enter into such an agreement. It is understood that the applicant is in talks with a Housing Association in connection with the site.

11.6 The location of the site raises issues regarding potential contamination and archaeological remains, which can be covered by condition.

12. CONCLUSIONS

12.1 The proposed residential use of the site is in accordance with Supplementary Guidance to Policy EMP7 and will contribute to the regeneration of this part of the Borough. A redevelopment of flats would contribute to the Borough’s housing stock and would add to the variety of accommodation in this part of the Borough.

12.2 It is considered that the proposed residential redevelopment would result in a significant improvement in terms of the character of the area and impact on neighbouring residential properties. Staff are of the opinion that this proposal sufficiently overcomes the objections to the previous schemes. The bulk and massing of the development and the number of units have been reduced. Members may, however, take the view that whilst the site is acceptable for residential development the reduction in the bulk and massing of the scheme remains insufficient to satisfy policy objectives. In that case a refusal may be based on those grounds.

12.3 With regard to A1306 improvements and education contributions these matters are still outstanding and being negotiated with the applicant. In the event that no satisfactory conclusion is reached by the expiry of this

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 16

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

application it is recommended that planning permission be refused under delegated powers for the reasons set out earlier in this report.

12.4 Nevertheless, to conclude, on the basis that a planning obligation completed to cover education contributions, affordable housing and a financial contribution towards environmental improvements it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS

The proposed development necessitates an education and environmental improvement contribution, which results in a Section 106 agreement being required. The proposal would generate an education contribution of £25,644; this figure is for secondary school places. A contribution of £35,676 is required towards the A1306 environmental improvement scheme.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS

A section 106 agreement to be entered into to secure the financial contributions for environmental improvements to the A1306, affordable housing and educational needs in accordance with the Council's planning policies.

HUMAN RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

None

EQUALITIES AND SOCIAL INCLUSION IMPLICATIONS:

The Council’s planning policies are implemented with regard to Equalities and Diversity.

Staff contact: Patrick Keyes Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone number: 432685

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive

Background Papers

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC 17

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

2. The case sheet and examination sheet.

3. Ordnance survey extract showing site and surroundings.

4. Standard Planning Conditions and Standard Green Belt reason for refusal.

5. Relevant details of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Article 4 Directions.

6. Copy of all consultations/representations received and correspondence, including other Council Directorates and Statutory Consultees.

7. The relevant planning history.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM6P2175.06NEWROAD.DOC MEETING DATE ITEM

REGULATORY SERVICES 1 FEBRUARY 2007 COMMITTEE 7

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: Planning Application No. P2452.06 Land at the corner of Neave Crescent and Farringdon Avenue, Harold Hill (received 21/12/06)

PROPOSAL: Construction of 2-storey dwelling house

WARD: Heaton

SUMMARY

This report concerns a full application for the erection of a 2-storey dwelling house with basement. The Council-owned application site, located at the corner of Neave Crescent and Farringdon Avenue, Harold Hill is currently undeveloped but within an area where housing would be the appropriate preferred use. Staff consider that the proposal would accord with environment, housing and transportation policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. Planning permission is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the application is acceptable, subject to the following conditions:

1. SC04 (Time Limit – 3 years)

2. NSC01 Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the parking layout and access arrangements shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and shall be implemented in

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item7P2452_1.doc 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

accordance with the approved plans prior to the first occupation of the development for residential purposes and thereafter permanently retained.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal provides and retains adequate parking provision and a usable parking area in line with Policy ENV1 and Interim Planning Guidance on “Housing Density”.

3. SC09 (Materials)

4. SC11 (Landscaping)

5. SC13 (Screen fencing)

6. SC14 (sight lines/visibility splays)

7. SC32 (Accordance with plans)

8. SC62 (Hours of construction)

9. SC46 (flank windows)

10. SC45A (removal of permitted development)

11. SC48 (balcony)

12. NSC02 Before the property hereby permitted is first occupied, full details/samples of materials of the boundary treatment to Neave Crescent and Farringdon Avenue shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in line with Policy ENV1 of the Havering Unitary development Plan.

13. NSC03 Prior to the commencement of any ground works or development of the site a) site investigation shall be undertaken to assess the level and extent of any landfill gas present, together with an assessment of associated risks. The investigation shall be in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing’. b) If during development works any contamination should be encountered which was not previously identified in the Site Investigation then works should halt immediately and the Local Planning Authority consulted to agree appropriate further action.’

Reason: To protect those redeveloping this site and any future occupants

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item7P2452_1.doc 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

from potential landfill gas.

14. Should it be necessary to move any highway lighting column as a consequence of achieving access to the development proposed the development shall not be occupied for residential purposes until such time as the lamp column or columns are suitably relocated to the satisfaction of the highway authority.

INFORMATIVES

1. The London Borough of Havering seeks to encourage Secured by Design accreditation where appropriate. This is a national police initiative, which is supported by the Home Office Crime Reduction and Community Safety Unit and the Planning Section of the OPDM. It is designed to encourage the building industry to adopt crime prevention measures to assist in reducing the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime, creating safer, more secure and sustainable environments. It is recommended that the applicant apply for this award. For additional information, please contact the Borough Crime Prevention Advisor through the London Borough of Havering Regulatory Services or Romford Police Station, 19 Main Road, Romford RM1 3BJ.

2. The Council encourages the developer to apply the principles of the "Considerate Constructors Scheme" to the contract for the development.

3. This planning permission is given solely in the Council’s capacity as Local Planning Authority and does not convey any other form of consent, including in the Council’s interest as owner of the site.

4. The proposal includes the resiting of a street lamp. The applicant is advised that they will need to contact Highways and that they will need to pay for the design check and the cost of any alterations required. This will need to be undertaken prior to the vehicular access coming into use and you are urged to contact Highways as soon as possible. Alternatively, you may wish to consider a reduced length of vehicular access which would not interfere with the street lamp; plans for a change would need to be submitted in the normal way as an amendment to any grant of planning permission.

5. Reason for approval:

The site lies in an area where housing is the preferred alternative use. The proposal accords with Policies ENV1, ENV7, ENV13, HSG1, HSG5, LAR5 and TRN2 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan, IPG on Housing Density, and SPG on Amenity Space, PPG3 (housing) and Policy 4B.3 of the London Plan.

REPORT DETAIL

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item7P2452_1.doc 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

1. Site Description and Background

1.1 This application is put to Committee because the site is in Council ownership and this is a previously contentions site.

1.2 The application site comprises a roughly rectangular area of previously undeveloped land on the Eastern side of Neave Crescent at its junction with Farringdon Avenue. It is 29m deep and a maximum 16m wide.

1.3 The surrounding area is characterised by two and three-storey residential properties (including Farringdon Lodge – 2-storey) though to the West are commercial units at the junction with Straight Road. To the rear and south- east of the application site is an area of undeveloped land which is understood to provide a balancing pond.

2. Description of Proposal

2.1 The proposal is a resubmission following a refusal in March 2006 (P0070.06) and subsequently dismissal at appeal. The reason the appeal was dismissed was related to the siting of the garage to the front of the property and its relationship to the neighbour which was deemed unacceptable. This application seeks to address that. No other material objections were identified by the Inspector and the principle of the house was accepted.

The proposal is, again, for the construction of a 2-storey dwelling house. However the proposed attached front garage has been removed. In addition, the basement area has been expanded to the full width and depth of the house (bar the single storey front element) and increases from providing only a basement to providing a playroom/basement, a cellar, an additional room with ensuite WC/shower with an additional light well to the flank elevation. The building would therefore now provide 4 bedrooms, rather than 3 as previously. Minor internal rearrangements have not resulted in any changes to the external appearance of the building.

2.2 With the removal of the garage, the area of hardstanding for parking vehicles has increased.

3. History

3.1 P0070.06 – Construction of 2-storey dwelling-house with attached garage – refused 17/03/06. Subsequent appeal dismissed 3/11/06 on the grounds that the garage would result in loss of amenity to the neighbouring occupier. Other issues considered by the Planning Inspector, including issues relating to impact on the character in the area, impact of the proposed rear extension, possible flood risk and loss of open space were considered to be acceptable.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item7P2452_1.doc 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

The Planning Inspector considered that Highway matters and any impact on the open aspect to Faringdon Avenue were capable of being resolved through suitable conditions attached to any planning permission.

4. Consultation/Representations:

4.1 52 neighbouring and nearby properties were notified of the application. One letter has been received in response to consultation objecting to the proposal on the grounds that it would be out of character, would result in loss of open space, in increase in traffic and highway congestion and flooding. However the public consultation period is not yet complete (29.01.07) and any comments received will be reported orally at Committee.

5. Staff Comments

5.1 The main issue in this case is whether the Inspector’s reason for dismissing the earlier appeal has been satisfactorily overcome, given that the principle of a house on this site has been accepted.

5.2 The current proposal has removed the previously proposed front garage, bar a 1.5m deep single storey element, and replaced it with an area of hardstanding (part of a larger existing area) for vehicle parking. The only other alteration is to the accommodation underground which requires the insertion of a second light-well to the side of the property.

5.3 Staff consider that a 1.5m forward projection (rather than a full depth garage) close to the boundary with the neighbouring property would be significantly shallower than the existing garage to that property such that the additional depth would not, in this area, appear out of character or be likely to be harmful to the neighbour’s amenities.

5.4 Staff further consider that there would be no material harm caused by the addition of a second lightwell to the extended basement. The basement extension itself would not be used separately from the single dwelling-house and raises no further issues.

Car Parking/Highways Issues

5.5 The proposal for a single dwelling house in this location would require 1.5-2 parking spaces to be provided. The proposal, whilst now excluding the garage, would provide a large area of parking to the front of the site capable of providing spaces. Sightlines/visibility splays should be provided for the vehicular access; this can form a condition attached to any planning permission. A street lamp would need to be resited and a suitable informative will be attached should planning permission be forthcoming.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item7P2452_1.doc 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

6. Conclusions

6.1 Staff consider that, In the light of the amendments made following the Inspector’s dismissal of the earlier appeal staff consider that this scheme would be acceptable, subject to suitable conditions being attached. It would therefore accord with Policies ENV1, HSG1, ENV7, ENV13, HSG1, HSG5, LAR5 and TRN2 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan, IPG on Housing Density, and SPG on Amenity Space, PPG3 (housing) and Policy 4B.3 of the London Plan. Staff therefore recommend that planning permission be granted.

Financial Implications and risks:

None identified.

Legal Implications and risks:

This report concerns only material planning issues. Any land transaction between the applicant and the Council is dealt with independently and does not constitute a material planning consideration.

Human Resource Implications:

None

Equalities and Social Inclusion implications

All planning applications are processed in such a way as to respect equalities issues.

Staff Contact: Patrick Keyes Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone No: 432685 E-mail address [email protected]

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive

Background Papers

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

2. The case sheet and examination sheet.

3. Ordnance survey extract showing site and surroundings.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item7P2452_1.doc 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

4. Standard Planning Conditions and Standard Green Belt reason for refusal.

5. Relevant details of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Article 4 Directions.

6. Copy of all consultations/representations received and correspondence, including other Council Directorates and Statutory Consultees.

7. The relevant planning history.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item7P2452_1.doc abcdefghijklmn MEETING DATE ITEM

REGULATORY SERVICES 1 FEBRUARY 2007 COMMITTEE 8

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: U0006.06 Beam Reach Business Park 5, Plots 8 and part 7, Rainham

PROPOSAL: Two (2) tall industrial units for the installation of printing presses and associated equipment & buildings including offices, toilets, plant rooms and associated parking – uses B1/B2 and B3.

WARD: South Hornchurch

SUMMARY

1. This application will be determined by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation under its planning powers. The purpose of this report is to seek members’ views on the application which will be included with those of other consultees in the report to the LTGDC planning committee.

2. This is an application for two new buildings and associated parking to be constructed as the result of Olympic relocation on plot 8 and part of plot 7 of the Beam Reach 5 Business Park. The buildings are to be occupied by printing companies.

3. Due to the short timeframe in which to relocate from the Olympic site, construction of the development is presently underway.

4. The application falls to the LTGDC to be determined because of the scale and nature of the development.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

RECOMMENDATION

1) That the committee agree with staff that the development complies with government guidance and London Plan and Havering UDP and LDF policies as set out in this report that no objections are raised to the application and should the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation be minded to grant planning permission that it be subject to a S106 agreement and conditions as set out at the end of the report;

2) That the Head of Development and Building Control be authorised to prepare a written response to the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation in accordance with the recommendation or as otherwise resolved by the committee at the meeting.

REPORT DETAIL

1.0 Introduction:

1.1 This report is made to seek the views of members on this application for the development of two new buildings to be constructed within the Beam Reach 5 Business Park, off Marsh Way, Rainham. The application will be determined by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation. The Development Corporation will take these views into account, along with those of other consultees and any local representations, when making its decision on the application.

2.0 Site Description:

2.1 The application site (some 1.6 ha) is located on Plot 8 and part of Plot 7 of the Beam Reach 5 Business Park east of the Ford Works, north of the A13, Rainham.

2.2 The site boundaries form a rectangular shape and were cleared and levelled as part of a previous application for the ‘break out’ of the remaining concrete slab from the Ford Motor Works Foundry.

2.3 An established wetland area exists to the east of the site and the CTRL rail line is located immediately to the north.

3.0 Description of proposal:

3.1 The proposal stems from the consequences of the Olympic Relocation Project. The two buildings are proposed to support two printing and distribution firms that are presently located within a number of smaller sites within the Olympic Zone.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

3.2 The applicants advise that one of the printing companies produces approximately 10 million copies of newspapers every week including national daily titles, UK editions of international daily titles and weekly publications including a number of ethnic and local based titles. It is stated to be the largest manufacturing employer within the Olympic Zone currently employing some 280 staff.

3.3 The companies involved are on a tight time frame in order to be entirely relocated by July 2007, the date when their current premises must be vacated under the terms of the Compulsory Purchase Order. At their own risk the applicants have initiated works on site to seek to ensure this time frame will be met.

3.4 The application proposes to construct two new steel framed buildings to support printing presses for newspapers. Each building will have the following dimensions:

Building / Plot Length Width Height Footprint Building 1 / Part 7 45m 17m 16.6m 3,598sqm Building 2 Plot 8 20m 17m 14.6m 1,571sqm

3.5 Internally, Building number 1 would include elements on four levels and Building 2 including elements on three levels consisting of the printing presses, operating rooms and platforms, paper storage, amenities and offices.

3.6 Externally, both buildings would be constructed with Merlin grey steel in a ‘wave’ profile and a colour scheme applied to each building.

3.7 Building 1 would include one large horizontal ‘tangerine orange’ stripe to the southern elevation. Building 2 would consist of seven vertical stripes of 4 varying colours, ‘poppy red’, ‘svelte grey’, ‘Merlin grey’ and ‘albatross’. The southern elevations would include windows placed at varying heights overlaid with Brise Soleil designed to break up the visual appearance of the building façade together with associated canopies, access doors and service entries.

3.8 The northern elevation that fronts the CTRL Rail line would incorporate groups of high windows to allow views into the building. Building 1 will have two groups of three windows and one group of one covering some 15% of the northern elevation. Building 2 will have two groups of two windows covering an area of approximately 20% of the northern elevation.

3.9 Two points of access are proposed from Consul Avenue to allow for segregated site use. The two sites are interlinked to allow for internal traffic flow. A total of 61 parking spaces are to be provided on the site, 40 for Building 1 including 2 disabled spaces. The remaining 21 include 2 disabled spaces that would serve Building 2.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

3.10 Cycle and pedestrian paths are presently part developed through the Beam Reach Business Park.

3.11 An environmental statement and additional studies submitted in support of the application consider the potential impact of the proposal from the following factors:

· Land quality due to the site’s contamination; · Traffic and transport; · Ecology – the site is adjacent to an existing wetland area of which is fed by a natural established drainage corridor; · Flooding – the site is within a category 3 flood risk area as defined by the Environment Agency; · Sustainability and Energy; · Archaeology.

4.0 History:

4.1 Extensive history is attached to this site, although of most relevance to this development would be:

P1155.00 Development of industrial land for B1 and B2 use – Approved P1550.00 Break out of existing concrete slab for incinerator- Approved P1551.00 Break out of the existing concrete slab – Approved P1605.00 Construction of new highway from A13/Marsh Way junction - Approved P1096.04 Vehicles sales and maintenance facility - Withdrawn P1869.05 Renewal of Planning permission P1155.00 – Under consideration P1970.05 Reserved matters application, plot 9 - Approved

5.0 Consultations and Representations:

5.1 As part of the procedures established for considering applications to be determined by LTGDC, ward councillors in the Rainham / Wennington and South Hornchurch area have been consulted. At the time of preparation of the report no objections had been received.

5.2 Any representations received will be reported at the meeting.

6.0 Policy Considerations & Issues: 6.1 Policy Guidance

6.1.1 Government Guidance in PPS1 (General policy and principles), PPG4 (Industrial, commercial development and small firms) and PPG13 (Transport) encourage a balance between economic growth and sustainable development. The London Plan supports these principles with further policy guidance and identifies East London as a high priority development area

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

through the Sub-Regional Development Framework for East London. Further guidance is set out in RPG9a (The Thames Gateway Planning Framework).

6.1.2 PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) and PPS25 (Development and flood risk) are also relevant.

6.1.3 UDP policy EMP1 (Rainham Employment Area) encourages business and industrial uses of these sites. Policy ENV1 (Environmental Criteria for New Developments) ENV7 (Nature Conservation) set out the local policies relating to this area to assist in the protection of the environment in regard to areas of scientific interest, local nature reserves and nature conservation importance and to ensure good development techniques are implemented in the building design whilst promoting a balance between the local ecosystems and economic development.

6.1.4 ENV8 concerns contaminated sites and TRN2 the effect of development on public transport and roads.

6.1.5 Havering’s Local Development Framework has been approved for consultation and is a material consideration. The LDF identifies the Beam Reach Business Park as a main employment area and an important location for advanced manufacturing uses.

6.1.6 Havering’s Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) sets out Havering's approach to a number of planning policy issues pending the adoption of the Local Development Framework and may give further weight to the LDF. IPG (London Riverside Urban Strategy) identifies the site as an area for key employment uses with potential future transport upgrades. IPG (Sustainable Design and Construction) would apply to the design of the development.

6.2 Issues:

6.2.1 The issues are the principle of development, its impact on local environmental conditions including amenity and highway implications:

6.3 Principle of the development:

6.3.1 The site is identified in the UDP and LDF as being within a major employment area. The LDF and London Riverside IPG further aim to prioritise the Beam Reach Site as a High Tech Business Park that would promote B1b, B1c and B2 uses which would include the type of printers proposed. The proposed use is therefore acceptable in principle.

6.4 Environmental Impact

6.4.1 The planning application is accompanied by environmental submissions and further statements which consider the main potential impacts of the development. The conclusion of the assessments is that there would be no

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

significant environmental impacts subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the statement and recommendations of the assessments. The main potential impacts identified would be in regard to site contamination, ecology and flooding. Planning conditions are suggested that would cover these aspects.

6.4.2 Land immediately adjacent to the site is an area of established natural wetland. A strip of land to the north of the site is identified as a further wildlife corridor. These areas are not within the application site and whilst immediately adjacent, it is considered that the proposed development would not impact harmfully upon these natural areas. To ensure these areas are protected during site operation and construction, conditions are suggested.

6.4.3 Addressing habitats on the site, an extended Phase 1 Habitat study has been undertaken. This concluded that there would be no impact from the development. Through the planting of native species, local bird wildlife would be supported and promoted. Staff are satisfied that through the implementation of a relevant landscape plan protected by appropriate conditions and S106 costs that this can be adequately achieved.

6.4.4 Previous use of the site supported the Ford Motor Works foundry and as the subject of a previous application, the concrete slab had been broken out. A Phase 1 Contamination Desktop Assessment has been undertaken. The site was found to contain some contaminates and is classified as having a moderate to high risk. Following recommendations relating to the construction of the site in the Environmental Statement and through liaison with the Environment Agency, staff are satisfied that the site can be safely developed using appropriate construction techniques. A condition is recommended to ensure that further site investigation, risk assessment and appropriate remediation is carried out.

6.4.5 The site is located within a flood risk area. A flood risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with PPS25 and guidance has been given by the Environment Agency. It is proposed that the site would be developed in accordance with this advice and would be constructed to safe levels avoiding flood risk. Conditions are suggested to ensure that the development of plot 8 would not proceed until details of fluvial flooding compensation are received and implemented.

6.4.6 Drainage provision issues have been addressed during construction to date and a condition is recommended to reinforce this.

6.4.7 As a result of the advanced construction programme, the developers have been liaising with the relevant statutory bodies to ensure that issues are addressed as they arise. Details of these consultations will be forwarded as part of the Council’s response to the LTGDC.

6.5 Transport / Distribution and Accessibility

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

6.5.1 Access to the site would be from the existing spur road, Consul Avenue off Marsh Way. A fourth arm of an existing roundabout provides the northern access to this site. The development proposes to alter this layout by removing the fourth arm and introducing two additional access points along the east and west arms of Consul Avenue.

6.5.2 Staff consider that access to the site would be sufficiently segregated and distanced from the roundabout to allow for safe entry/egress to each site and that the internal layout of the development would provide adequate space within the site for manoeuvring.

6.5.3 A transport assessment has been submitted to evaluate the impact of the development on the local road network and A13. Staff consider that any traffic associated with this proposal would not be in excess of expected traffic volumes for the proposed use in this location and that the local road network and A13 would not be affected. Members may however, wish to consider that any report to the LTGDC should advise that permission should only be granted if they are satisfied the impact on the A13 and local road network will be acceptable.

6.5.4 A total of 61 parking spaces are proposed on the site. Current UDP guidelines would require a total of approximately 131 spaces to be provided. This is however preceded by both the original masterplan of the site and the London Plan, which seek a total parking provision of 67 spaces. This would support the view of the traffic assessment undertaken by the applicant and staff are of the opinion that given recent government guidance on parking standards, the implementation of a future train station at Beam Reach identified in Council’s LDF and the implementation of a green travel plan within the first year of the sites operation that parking provision would be satisfactory. The proposal complies with the 5% disabled parking provision.

6.5.5 Cycle and motor-cycle parking is proposed on site to provide 25 and 15 spaces respectively. The provision would be secure and would incorporate covered cycle areas in close proximity to the entrances of the proposed buildings. An appropriate condition is recommended.

6.6 Sustainability

6.6.1 The applicants advise that the development would be a large user of electricity. Power supply to the site has not yet been incorporated within the business park but the owners, the London Development Agency advise that it is expected to achieve 20% carbon emission reduction of which the proposal will be required to link into once supplied. Energy supply in the meantime will be via an onsite bio-diesel plant which staff are satisfied will obtain 10% reduction.

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 8

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

6.6.2 A BREEAM assessment has been carried on the proposed development. A level of very good is achievable for building 2. This is slightly reduced for building 1 but is considered acceptable. Achieving these results is recommended to be protected by condition.

6.7 Visual

6.7.1 The Beam Reach Business Park is identified within the UDP and LDF as falling within a main employment area where buildings of the scale and character of those proposed will not appear inappropriate or out of character.

6.7.2 The proposal is judged to involve designs of buildings where the use of colour and positioning of windows have been used to enhance the southern elevations. To the northern elevation the wider expanse of glazing proposed will afford views into the building and the associated printing presses from passing trains on the C2C (London Fenchurch Street to Southend Railway Line) and CTRL railways. Whilst the standard of design is a matter of judgement, staff are satisfied that this represents a positive approach and that a good quality of design will be achieved by the development. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with policies EMP1 and ENV1 of the UDP along with the guidance of RPG9a, and PPG4 together with policy DC9 of the LDF which recognises the need for high quality design at the Beam Reach Business Park in order to promote its use for quality developments with a high employment intensity.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The report assesses a number of issues arising from the application; Location, Transportation, Economic, Visual and Environmental. In considering how to respond to the LTGDC, staff consider that the issues to which members need to pay particular regard to are as follows:

· The proposed development would be in accordance with UDP policy EMP1 and the LDF insofar as the development, within this location would represent a development promoting Beam Reach 5 as a high tech business park.

· Redevelopment of this land for the proposed B1 and B2 use would provide for further economic and employment growth.

· Its location within close proximity and easy access to the A13 and M25 would provide for more sustainable and adequate transportation options for this use.

· The site is currently accessible via public bus transportation links to the CEME site. Provision for further public access links have been provided in future development plans and include the implementation of the Beam Reach rail station, C2C and East London Transit in the future as part of the

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 9

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

overall regeneration of this area. This would allow for further public transport access that would promote green travel options.

· The environmental statement and supporting documentation demonstrates that potential impacts arising from the development would not be significant and the further development of this site would enhance this area.

· The proposed development would represent a catalyst for further development on the site.

7.2 In conclusion staff consider that the location of the proposal in regard to policy aims and objectives and for reasons stated above would expect to provide for a high quality visual development that would further enhance this area and promote the aims of this site being developed as a high tech business park.

7.3 Staff consider that the proposed development would be an acceptable development in this area that would set a positive precedent for future development of the park to council guidelines and expectations in compliance with policy ENV1 and future guidance of the LDF.

7.4 Notwithstanding these considerations, should members be of the view that the development is unacceptable and wish to raise objections to the application, then the response to the LTGDC can be framed in accordance with Members' objections.

7.5 Should members agree with staff that no objections be raised and should the LTGDC be minded to grant planning permission, staff recommend that any permission should be subject to the following:

Planning conditions to cover:

· Measures to minimise the environmental impacts arising from the development on surrounding areas including ground water, drainage, flood risk (to accord with Environment Agency advice) and nature conservation interests;

· Parking to be implemented and retained;

· No outdoor storage of materials;

· Details of design for safety and crime reduction (secure by design);

· Specific details of the development including materials, lighting, fencing, gates, landscaping, refuse and cycle storage;

· Access and Services;

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC 10

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

· Conditions to achieve sustainability of materials, water and energy resources.

Planning obligation under S106 to cover:

· Contribution for the development, protection and management of the wetland corridor;

· Travel plan;

· Water Vole Studies;

· Cycleways;

· Contribution towards transportation / engineering s106 for traffic management models;

· Bus service provision contribution;

Staff Contact: David Lawn Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone No: 432800 E-mail address [email protected]

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive Background Papers

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

2. The environmental statement submitted with the application

S:\BSSADMIN\COMMITTEES\REGULATORY\REPORTS\2007\070201\070201ITEM8U0006.06 BEAM REACH.DOC MEETING DATE ITEM

REGULATORY SERVICES 1 FEBRUARY 2007 COMMITTEE 9

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: P1013.06 and C0006.06 – Highlands, 59 Main Road, Romford

PROPOSAL: P1013.06 – Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 23 retirement apartments (over 60 years), 21 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed

C0006.06 – Conservation Area consent for demolition of existing building

WARD: Pettits

SUMMARY

Planning and Conservation Area consent (for demolition) applications have been received on the property known as Highlands at 59 Main Road. It is proposed to demolish the building and erect 23 bed retirement apartments in a single new building.

As the property is within Gidea Park Conservation Area certain judgements and tests set out in PPG15 apply before a building may be demolished for new development. These tests centre in the first instance around the contribution the existing building makes to the area's character or appearance and if the building does so positively contribute, then further tests must be addressed (as if the building were listed) before demolition can be undertaken.

The report outlines these tests and concludes that the existing building does make a positive contribution and further concludes that the full range of tests for demolition have not been met. Planning permission and Conservation Area consent are therefore recommended for refusal.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

RECOMMENDATION

A. That planning application P1013.06 be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal involves the demolition of a building which contributes positively to the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area. The application fails to convincingly demonstrate that the building is incapable of re-use through adaptation and/or extension or that all reasonable efforts have been made to secure a beneficial use in the building as embodied in the principles set out in PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and in particular the criteria (i) and (ii) of Paragraph 3.19 of PPG15. The loss of this building would therefore unacceptably detract from the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area contrary to Policies ENV3 and ENV21 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and PPG15.

2. The proposal fails to deliver an appropriate affordable housing contribution contrary to the Havering Unitary Development Plan and Council's Interim Planning Guidance for Affordable Housing.

B. That Conservation Area application C0006.06 be refused for the following reason:

1. The unjustified demolition of this building would adversely and unacceptably detract from the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area contrary to Policies ENV3 and ENV23 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and PPG15 "Planning and the Historic Environment".

REPORT DETAIL

1. Site Description

1.1 No.59 Main Road is an extended and adapted former dwelling on the north side of Main Road set in its own grounds of about 0.3ha. It was originally built in the Arts and Crafts style in around 1906, just before the 1911 Exhibition and Competition, but has subsequently been altered through various extensions to the rear and the east side in order to accommodate subsequent uses including its last use, as a children's home. The original 1906 building remains as the core of the enlarged building and when viewed from Main Road it is intact but with the later addition, in the same style, visible on the right hand side. To the east are various buildings of mixed flat uses including

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

the adjoining building, No.61 Main Road a recent flat conversion/extension scheme. To the west is Nightingale House, a nursing home specialising in dementia treatment originating as a family home from around 1920. Family housing is to the north/north west with rear gardens backing onto the application site on its west and north boundaries.

2. Description of Proposal

2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site with a new building comprising 23 retirement apartments (21 x 2 bed, 2 x1 bed). These would be in a building broadly three storeys in height, but with a deep roof slope to eaves at two storeys apart from two full three storey front bays. The building would measure 24m wide across its frontage and 11m high to the front gables. Overall the building is 41m deep reducing to 9.5m in width. It reduces to 1½ storeys in scale at the rear and 7.6m in height (to roof) at its end elevation. The building would be traditionally finished in brick tile and render.

2.1 Twelve parking spaces are provided to the front of the building along with separate provision for cycle parking and refuse in a "cart store" style building.

2.2 A garden area is provided to the rear of the building and comprising the original garden of the premises.

3. History

3.1 Extensive – recent history includes:

L/HAV/104/84 Various conversions and change of use to flats and family units for rehabilitation - approved P0729.86 Temporary nursery during site works - approved P0053.86 Demolition and new build for 23 retirement homes - withdrawn

4. Consultations/Representations

4.1 The proposal has been advertised through site and press notices. 123 local properties were consulted on each of the Planning and Conservation Area consent applications. Five letters/e-mails of objection were received to P1013.06 and four to C0006.06 in duplicate. Objections are: no more congestion in area, the Conservation Area should be conserved, intensification of development, development unsustainable – better to convert, shortfall in parking, private gardens, not communal.

4.2 The local MP supports an objection from a resident (traffic congestion).

Save Britain's Heritage: State strongest objection – PPG15 would

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

encourage re-use.

English Heritage: No.59 makes a positive contribution. It displays arts and crafts (neo vernacular features typifies the houses and character of the Conservation Area – opportunity for alteration and development while enabling the original integrity of the house to be retained.

Greater London Archaeology Request archaeology conditions. (EH):

Havering Crime Prevention Parking adequacy concerns – request other Officer: conditions.

NHS: No objections.

Gidea Park and District Civic Object – bulk and height – query whether Society (P0053.06) demolition is appropriate.

5. Officer's Comments

5.1 There are two applications considered jointly in this report.

5.2 The principal application is P1013.06 which is the planning application for the development of this site. The second application (C0006.06) is for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing building. It is inappropriate to grant this unless planning permission has previously been granted for an acceptable development as this would leave an unsightly gap in the Conservation Area contrary to advice set out in PPG15. Again, if planning permission is refused in this case then the Conservation Area Consent for demolition cannot reasonably be granted.

5.3 The following report therefore addresses the planning application and the issues it raises. The recommendation on C0006.06 will reflect the recommendation on P1013.06 and will be taken after that decision is reached.

5.4 The issues regarding this application concern the principle of an elderly persons new build development on this site. If this use is acceptable the issue is whether the scheme proposed meets National and Local Conservation Area policies with regard to first, the appropriateness of demolishing the existing building and second, whether the proposed new building preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area. If the scheme passes the necessary tests then additional issues for the planning application are affordable housing contributions and the detailed workability of the layout regarding parking

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

provision, access, cycle/refuse, sustainability, relationship to neighbours, streetscene, landscaping and other technical aspects.

5.5 Relevant policies are HSG1, ENV1, ENV3, ENV21 TRN18, Appendices 7 and 3 of the Unitary Development Plan and PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment). The LDF is a material consideration and a similar policy framework is provided by Core Strategy CP18 and Development Control Policy DC68.

5.6 Policy HSG1 encourages the broad principle of new residential development in residential areas. Purely in land use terms there would be no "in principle" objection to a more intensive residential use of this site in the form of elderly person's flats.

5.7 However, the site is within the Gidea Park Conservation Area and more stringent policy tests must be met before development can take place. These are set out in the UDP and PPG15. In summary:

5.7.1 No development of any kind, whether extension, changes of use, redevelopment or other development shall take place in any Conservation Area unless special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the special character or appearance of that Conservation Area. To meet this test, the baseline is that of leaving the character unharmed. Development causing any harm at all should be refused.

5.7.2 If it is proposed to demolish an existing building in a Conservation Area then a judgement must be made to determine whether that building makes a positive contribution to the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Account should be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the buildings, surroundings and in the Conservation Area as a whole. If it does not contribute, then that building may be considered for removal subject to other factors including the quality of the replacement building.

5.7.3 If however the building to be removed is itself deemed to contribute positively to the special character or appearance then advice set out in PPG15 is clear; there is a general presumption to retain it.

5.7.4 Proposals to demolish buildings which positively contribute to the character or appearance should be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals to demolish listed buildings. Paragraph 3.19 to PPG15 set out three tests to be met before such a building can be demolished. These are essentially to consider (in précis):

i) The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

ii) The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. (Real efforts made without success to continue the present use or find compatible alternative uses for the building).

iii) The merits of alternative proposals for the site (alternative merits of proposed replacement buildings should not in themselves be held to justify demolition, other factors such as community benefit may have to be weighed against arguments in favour of preservation. Even then it may be possible to imaginatively design to accommodate them).

5.8 As the principle of a more intensive residential use for the site has been established under HSG1, the next test is to assess whether the existing building makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area. This is important in order to ascertain whether to move on to the three tests in PPG15 or not.

5.9 No.59 Main Road (also known as Highlands) was built in or around 1906. It is a tall two storey building, constructed originally as a family dwelling but with substantial later alterations to the rear and right hand side to suit consequent adaptations to other uses. The original house remains however. The front extensions to the right hand side are in the same style and materials, continuing the form of the original.

5.10 English Heritage describes the building as displaying a number of architectural details and features of arts and crafts/neo vernacular style which typifies the houses and therefore the character of the Gidea Park Conservation Area. They state that the building makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This view is supported by the Council's Conservation Coordinator. The applicants have provided an architectural and historical appraisal by consultants Purcell Miller Tritton. This appraisal outlines the historical background to the Conservation Area itself, it dates the house at No.59 to 1906 (on a cast iron hopper head in the front elevation) and describes how four large similar villas were built on land fronting Hare Street (Main Road) between 1870 and 1890 to the east of No.59 which itself clearly followed later. The point being made is that this portion of Main Road has an independent history to the 1911 exhibition/competition land to the north. The appraisal goes on to assess the buildings architectural and historic significance and criticises the extensions and changes made to it in later times. With regard to the contribution the building makes to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area the appraisal acknowledges that it is "situated on the main part of the former land of Gidea Hall, part of an early sub-division that preceded the major garden suburb development. The original house is indeed linked stylistically to the houses of the 1911 exhibition, though significantly less distinguished than those surviving examples further north. It is thus certainly the case that the

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

house is part of the history and architectural development of the Conservation Area."

5.11 The assessment then goes on to describe that the property is on the periphery of the Conservation Area, is unrelated to the 1911 areas to the north and forms part of the Main Road scene facing inter war housing to the opposite side.

5.12 The assessment also notes the relationship to its neighbours and that most have been altered in one way or another. It concludes the building was of its Edwardian period with windows and roofs unmistakably from the arts and crafts tradition. The alterations have "badly damaged what simple value it had. They could be reversed". It goes on to query the value of the original house and warns against "facadism" (ie retaining just the front face of the building in restored form but with new build to the rear).

5.13 In the light of advice from the different quarters, a definitive position on the extent of the buildings contribution to the Conservation Area is difficult to assess. However, one thing seems clear: it does contribute to the character or appearance under the benchmarks of PPG15 and practice. The reasons are:

5.13.1 There are clear historic links between the building, the development of the Hare Street frontage and the arts and crafts movement forming the rationale for including the Main Road frontage in the Conservation Area. The contribution of the Main Road (Old Hare Street) frontage to the Conservation Area has recently been reviewed and reaffirmed by SPG for Gidea Park Area of Special Character (September 2003) with its "supporting role to the Gidea Park Conservation Area".

5.13.2 The original building has definable features and characteristics linking it to the Arts and Crafts movement. It is well balanced in proportion and this relates well to its neighbours.

5.13.3 Although embedded in later extensions, the original building is strongly definable and largely intact. It is the dominant façade in the streetscene and presents a strong unity of the original design, sale and proportions, despite being extended (in a largely sympathetic manner) to its right hand side. Adverse features (eg roof lights) can easily be rectified.

5.13.4 The site width has never apparently been altered.

5.13.5 The property was included in the Conservation Area when it was designated in 1970, despite some alterations already being carried out. Indeed, the Technical Services Committee, in designating the Conservation Area at its meeting on 10 June 1970 cited the GLC Architects Department as saying that policies for enhancement of the area should include "special consideration of

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 8

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

the older nucleus of pre-competition buildings in Main Road". This is positive affirmation of its contribution at that time. In these circumstances, despite the varying and subjective nature of such an assessment, it is concluded that the building makes a positive compared to adverse contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that this is not a marginal matter.

5.14 Accordingly, the next step is to move to the three tests set out in PPG15 regarding the demolition of such buildings.

5.15 Although disagreeing that the building makes a positive contribution the applicants have nevertheless submitted a case for demolition addressing these three tests and these are summarised below with comment.

i) The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use.

Applicants Case

Various structural deficiencies and maintenance issues are identified relating to the frontage and roof. They relate mainly to alteration to roof trusses, repair to pebbledash and pointing and windows. The applicants state in summary that a new build scheme would give a 15% return on costs compared to 4.4% if the façade is kept.

Comment:

Advice from English Heritage and the Conservation Coordinator is that keeping the façade alone (facadism) is inappropriate and not what is suggested by them. What should be achieved is the retention of the whole front range, ie the building shell further back and there is much more flexibility for internal adaptions as the building is not listed and it is the exterior appearance alone which is important. No costings or feasibility studies have been submitted for this approach.

Furthermore, PPG15 specifically does not place a simple financial equation as the determinant factor when the value of retaining the historic building should also be built in. In addition, it is known that well converted historic buildings can attract a premium price, which has not been included in the applicants' submission.

ii) The adequacy of the efforts made to retain the building in use. (Real efforts made without success to continue the present use of find compatible alternative uses for the building).

Applicants Case

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 9

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

The applicants say that despite extensive marketing there was no interest from anyone seeking to acquire the property for an institutional use. All interested parties planned to redevelop the site. Retention would have alleged extra constructional costs.

Comment:

Evidence submitted by the marketing agents on behalf of the applicant states that the property was "broadly marketed". The final bidders all looked to redevelop. No evidence has been provided that the site was marketed as a historic/heritage property with re-use or adaptation and extension as the primary option in accordance with principles set out in PPG15. The evidence therefore clearly fails test (ii) of PPG15 in that real efforts have demonstratively not been made to retain the building in use.

iii) The merits of alternative proposals for the site.

Comment:

In parallel with the conservation policy issues outlined above, the applicants have been developing their proposals for a new build scheme. It shows a two/three storey building of a similar footprint to the existing over the front c.24m wide, but projecting rearwards into the amenity area by 14m further than existing (overall depth c.41m). The front elevation is up to three storey and a true elevation (ie ignoring perspective) shows it to be broadly the same height and width to Main Road as exiting but with two large front bays which will, at almost three storeys, appear larger and more prominent to the passer by than the existing front elevation. However, considerable care has gone into the design and detailing of the building and its elevations. The design of the new building in relation to its neighbours, takes certain design uses from the building to the right hand side in the streetscene. In particular its neighbour and finishing materials (brick, tile, render) are also acceptable in principle subject to final agreement. Officers consider subject to appropriate conditions concerning detailing and materials they meet the objectives of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, were the preceding tests to be satisfied, albeit that the building would only ever be a pastiche of the Arts and Crafts style.

However in testing the proposal against criterion 3 of Paragraph 3.19 of PPG15 guidance makes clear that while the merits of the alternative proposal to replace the building proposed for demolition is a material consideration, the Secretary of State at appeal would take the view that subjective views of architectural merit of the proposed replacement building should not in themselves be held to justify demolition. This case is not considered to fall within the exceptional category for which the merits of the proposal outweigh the negative impact on the Conservation Area resulting from the loss of a

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 10

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

building which makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

In conclusion, on the conservation policy aspects it is established that the existing makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The presumption is that proposals for demolition should be assessed against the broad criteria set out above. In this case 2 of the 3 criteria have not been satisfied and the application is recommended for refusal on those grounds.

6. Other Issues

Traffic/Parking

6.1 Twelve spaces are provided for the 23 flats which meets current UDP parking standards for such development.

6.2 However, concern has been expressed by objectors that this is insufficient parking and that over 60s are just as likely to own a car in current society as under 60s. There is therefore a likelihood of increased congestion in surrounding roads.

6.3 There may be some merit in this argument but this is a matter of judgement for Members. It would nevertheless be difficult to refuse an application which complies with the UDP standards without firm evidence to the contrary, particularly when National emphasis is on reducing reliance on the car through more restrictive parking provision. In any event, were this application to be otherwise acceptable, control could be exercised through legal agreement restricting age to 60 (the applicants have offered 65) and requiring through management that only a proportion of occupants to have cars on site.

Amenity Space

6.4 The development requires 1130sqm of amenity space and over 1300sqm is provided. This is therefore acceptable.

Relationship to Neighbours

6.5 Immediately to the west in Main Road (No.57) is a specialist nursing home for dementia patients (Nightingale House). This presents a single storey flank to the proposed building containing 2 ground floor windows and 3 roof lights. The flank of the proposed building contains four windows per floor serving bedrooms over three floors so there would be some overlooking of the nursing home but as none of the windows in the adjoining property are habitable, this would not be significant.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 11

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

6.6 Immediately to the east is No.61 Main Road (flats 1-13 Miller Courts) a recently extended and converted property with a range of windows facing the application site. The proposed new building extends almost as far into its site as Miller Court, but reducing in height to 1½ storeys. The flank to flank distance is c.15m throughout the facing length of the flanks. Some bedroom windows would therefore face each other, but this is a currently existing situation with No.59 Main Road.

6.7 Gidea Close also lies to the west and houses 2a, 2 and 4 have gardens backing on the application site, with No.2a being sited behind the nursing home at 57 Main Road. These properties have gardens of between 21m (No.2a) and 8m (No.4) in length. The proposed building reduces in height as it projects into the rear garden area as well as staggering away from the boundary with these neighbours such that distances of 34m (to No.2a), and 30m (to Nos.2 and 4) are maintained to the rear face of the relevant property from bedroom windows in the proposed development. There is also significant screen landscaping to this boundary.

Affordable Housing

6.8 The applicants have agreed on affordable housing contribution for the scheme in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance. However, if Members resolve to refuse this application, the lack of a legal agreement to secure the contribution will need to be included in the refusal, otherwise the matter could be lost by default on appeal.

Education

6.9 No contribution is needed for elderly person's flats.

Sustainability

6.10 The applicants have submitted a sustainability statement which, were the application to be approved, would form the basis of an approach to meeting SPG on sustainability and which could also be covered by condition in that event.

Secure by Design

6.11 The Borough Crime Prevention Officer has raised concerned over lack of car parking suggesting that one for one provision should be the minimum for the active elderly target group and any shortfall could impact on issues of community safety. This issue is discussed earlier.

6.12 Other detailed issues raised are covered by conditions recommended by the Borough Crime Prevention Officer.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 12

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

7. Conclusion

7.1 The principle of additional residential units on this site is acceptable. However, there are alternative ways in which they can be provided and this application envisages demolition of the existing building and a new build replacement.

7.2 Its Conservation Area status places a duty on the Local Planning Authority to assess whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The Council also has to consider in the first instance whether the existing building contributes to that character or appearance. If it is deemed to contribute then a proposal to demolish must be assessed against the same broad criteria as to demolish listed buildings. This introduces the three tests set out in PPG15 discussed earlier.

7.3 The building known as Highlands dates from 1906 and was built in the Arts and Crafts vernacular. Although extended later, the original building exists and is identifiable as the core structure, particularly from the streetscene. Staff conclude, with advice from both English Heritage and the councils own Conservation Coordinator, that the building does contribute to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that the three tests must therefore be addressed and satisfied before planning permission and Conservation Area Consent can be granted. For the reasons set out in this report it is concluded that the tests are not satisfied. A convincing attempt has not been made to assess whether the existing building can be converted or adapted to the proposed use. There is considerable flexibility here as the building is not listed. Furthermore, the marketing undertaken did not seek to specifically explore options for re-use and adaptation as required by the tests.

7.4 It is therefore concluded that the proposal results in the loss of a building which contributes to the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation Area. There is insufficient justification for the removal of this building and it is accordingly recommended that planning permission and Conservation Area Consent be refused.

8. Financial Implications and Risks

8.1 None.

9. Legal Implications and Risks

9.1 None.

10. Human Resources Implications and Risks

10.1 None.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc 13

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

11. Equalities and Social Inclusion Implications

11.1 None.

Staff Contact: David Lawn Designation: Planning Control Manager (Applications) Telephone No: 01708 432800 E-mail address [email protected]

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive

Background Papers

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

2. The case sheet and examination sheet.

3. Ordnance survey extract showing site and surroundings.

4. Standard Planning Conditions and Standard Green Belt reason for refusal.

5. Relevant details of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Article 4 Directions.

6. Copy of all consultations/representations received and correspondence, including other Council Directorates and Statutory Consultees.

7. The relevant planning history.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201ITEM959MAINROAD.doc MEETING DATE ITEM

REGULATORY SERVICES 1 FEBRUARY 2007 COMMITTEE 10

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: Planning Application No. P2421.06 R/o 97-103 Essex Road, Romford (received 18/12/06)

PROPOSAL: Erection of four houses and garages

WARD: Mawneys

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application for the erection of 4 detached houses and garages on a 0.12 hectare site. Staff consider that the proposal would accord with housing, environment and transportation policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. Planning permission is recommended for approval subject to a legal agreement for education contributions and a contribution towards sustainable highway matters.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that either:

A the application is unacceptable as it stands, but would be acceptable subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the following:

· A financial contribution of £36,618 towards the provision of additional school places in accordance with the formula set out in interim planning

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

guidance for Educational Needs Generated by New Housing Development.

· A financial contribution of £7,000 for highway/environmental improvements at the White Hart Lane shopping parade to include secure cycle parking facilities in accordance with Interim Planning Guidance on Section 106 agreements

· That staff be authorised to enter into such an agreement and subject to completion of the planning agreement incorporating the planning obligations set out above by 12th February 2007 that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. SC04 (Time Limit – 3 years)

2. SC06 (Parking)

3. SC09 (Materials)

4. SC11 (Landscaping)

5. SC13 (Screen fencing)

6. SC32 (Accordance with plans)

7. SC62 (Hours of construction)

8. SC63 (Construction Methodology)

9. SC57 (Wheel washing)

10. SC14 (sight lines)

11. NSC01 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details that show how the principles and practices of the Secured by Design Award Scheme are to be incorporated into the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any construction works. Once approved, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities and residential amenity.

12. NSC02 No new vehicular accesses are to be provided from the proposed private drive to the rear of properties in Marlborough Road/Essex Road.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

Reason: The private drive is unsuitable for additional traffic and any additional parking spaces would be contrary to road layout standards as defined in Appendix 2 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan.

13. No development shall commence until details of access and 2 turning heads to be located outside the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development for residential purposes.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and safe access and egress to and from the application site to the public highway. INFORMATIVES

1. The London Borough of Havering seeks to encourage Secured by Design accreditation where appropriate. This is a national police initiative, which is supported by the Home Office Crime Reduction and Community Safety Unit and the Planning Section of the OPDM. It is designed to encourage the building industry to adopt crime prevention measures to assist in reducing the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime, creating safer, more secure and sustainable environments. It is recommended that the applicant apply for this award. For additional information, please contact the Borough Crime Prevention Advisor through the London Borough of Havering Regulatory Services or Romford Police Station, 19 Main Road, Romford RM1 3BJ.

2. The Council encourages the developer to apply the principles of the "Considerate Constructors Scheme" to the contract for the development.

3. The applicant is advised in relation to any subsequent applications, that should either of the affordable housing triggers (pre-June 2005; post-June 2005) be reached in relation to the site as a whole, the Council would require such development to provide a contribution of affordable housing. The Council would be prepared to consider at least an element of affordable housing being provided through a commuted sum.

4. The applicant is encouraged to provide sustainable and energy efficient development in accordance with The London Plan and the Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainable Design and Construction.

5. Reason for approval:

The site lies in an area where housing is the preferred alternative use. The proposal accords with Policies ENV1, HSG1, HSG5 and TRN2 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and PPG3 and Policy 4B.3 of the London Plan.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

Or

B That in the event that a planning agreement is not completed by 12th February 2006, incorporating the planning obligations set out in Recommendation A above, that planning permission be refused under the delegated powers of the Head of Development and Building Control for the following reason:

The proposal fails to make provision for the payment of a contribution towards the cost of additional school places within the Borough, contrary to Interim Planning Guidance for Educational Needs Generated by New Development and a contribution towards highway/environmental works at White Hart Lane shopping parade.

REPORT DETAIL

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site comprises an area of land located in between Essex Road and Marlborough Road. The roughly rectangular site comprises the rear garden of No.s 97 to and 103 Essex Road which wraps around to the rear of Nos.93 and 95 Essex Road. The site extends to a maximum depth of 32m and has a width of 40m.

1.2 The site would rely on the recently constructed road (under planning permission ref. P0979.04 at 127 Essex Road and its extension under P1462.04 at r/o 105-127 Essex Road and 168 – 178 and P0716.06 at r/o 105- 113 Essex Road) to enable access onto the main highway (Essex Road).

1.3 Essex Road is an established residential street containing two-storey, mainly terraced properties with a small number of bungalows. The site contains a number of outbuildings. The application site has an area of approximately 0.12 hectares.

2. Description of Proposal

2.1 The proposal seeks the erection of 4 detached, 2-storey houses with single attached garages to each property to the rear of 97-103 Essex Road. Three would be 4-bedroomed with the house on Plot 21 having 3 bedrooms. This is a revision to the recently withdrawn application P1927.06 for four houses with garages as a result of a likely refusal due to impact arising from its proposed layout.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 5

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

2.2 The houses would match with the recently completed properties within the new cul-de-sac.

2.3 The rear gardens to each property would be 12m deep. The rear amenity space would, in each case, exceed 100 square metres.

2.4 Each property would be provided with a garage and a parking space within a private drive.

3. History

3.1 There is no relevant planning history for this site. The planning history for the adjoining development site(s) are: P0021.03 - Erection of 7 new dwellings and access road - Refused. P0576.03 - erection of 7 new dwellings and access road - Refused, Appeal Allowed. P0979.04 - Amendment of existing planning consent to include revised property types on plots 1, 2 and 7 with an additional property on plot No.8 – Approved. P1462.04 – erection of 5 detached house, garages and associated roadworks – approved 17.06.05. P1730.05 – demolition of existing dwelling (No.129 Essex Road) and erection of replacement dwelling and 3 houses with garages – approved 15/11/05 P2259.05 – erection of one pair of houses (rear of 105-109 Essex Road) – withdrawn 19/1/06 P0031.06 – amendment to plot 1 of P1730.05 – received 6/1/06 – granted 3/3/06 P0716.06 – erection of three houses and garages and amendment of boundary fence to Plot 11 (granted approval under application P1462.04) - approved 28/11/06 P1927.06 – erection of 4 houses and garages – withdrawn 10/11/06

4. Consultation/Representations:

4.1 60 neighbouring and nearby properties were notified of the application. No representations have been received, however, the consultation period has not yet finished and any further objections will be reported orally at the Committee.

5. Staff Comments

5.1 The issues in this case are the principle of residential development, the impact of the development in the street scene and on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers and transportation issues. Policies ENV1, HSG1, HSG5 and TRN2 of the Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Amenity Space, Interim Planning Guidance on Housing Density, Education Needs and Affordable Housing and Supplementary Design

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 6

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

Guidance on Residential Extensions and Alterations also apply. Policy 4B.3 of The London Plan also applies; as does PPG3 Housing. Planning issues raised by residential development of this back-land area were explored in the determination of the original development site (Land adjacent to 127 Essex Road). Emerging Policy contained in the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework is also a material consideration, as such, Policies CP1, CP2, DC2, DC3, DC6, DC32 and DC33 are relevant.

5.2 A strong material consideration for subsequent applications to expand the original development site is the appeal Inspector's conclusion that residential development of the original area of development would not materially harm the character or amenity of the locality. Staff consider that the circumstances of the current application site are very similar in nature to that appeal scheme.

5.3 This site is not within a designated area in the Unitary Development Plan and, as such, Policy HSG1 indicates that housing development would be preferred. The proposed development of 4 houses is therefore acceptable in principle. The proposal also meets the aims of The London Plan to provide additional housing.

5.4 The site area is 0.12 hectares, which when added to the total of the four existing approvals, gives a total of 0.79 hectares. The four proposed in this application would add to the approved total giving 24 houses. The accumulated housing density is just over 30 dwellings per hectare. The housing density range for this site is 30-50 units per hectare and the proposed density would be at the lowest end of this range and is acceptable.

Design, Appearance and Layout

5.5 The development would be two-storey detached dwellings which would be in character with those in the locality.

5.6 The suggested levels of amenity space, back-to-back distances and overlooking are contained within Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Amenity Space.

5.7 In terms of the amenity space guidance for the development, the houses would have garden depths of 12m. Whilst this would be below the generally expected garden depth of 15m, the houses would meet the requirement for at least 100 square metres of amenity space each. Staff therefore consider that the amenity space provision would, given the back to back distances with frontage properties at a minimum of 34m (exceeding the 30m guidance distance), be acceptable and reasonable as the individual gardens would be functional, private and in-character with those on the rest of this cul-de-sac estate.

Impact in the Street Scene

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 7

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

5.8 The proposed properties would front onto a private drive at the end of the new cul-de-sac. They would be similar in terms of their design and scale to development currently under construction in the cul-de-sac. It is therefore considered that it would be in character in this streetscene.

Car Parking/Highways Issues

5.9 The proposal shows a provision of 2 parking spaces (one in a garage) for each of the properties. In this location, the level of parking provision is expected to be 1.5-2 per unit. The proposed development would therefore be acceptable in this respect.

5.10 The proposed development would utilise the recently constructed cul-de-sac access road. This road is Type 6A (Minor Residential) which is at least 4.5m wide and can accommodate up to 40 parking spaces. The proposal would increase the number of parking spaces to a total of 46. The proposal would therefore increase the number of parking spaces above that which is normally acceptable in terms of the standards for roads in residential development, however, Highways do not object to the proposed number of additional parking spaces providing suitable visibility splays are provided, that the proposed adopted highway (at the egress of the cul-de-sac into Essex Road) contains double yellow lines to prevent parking on the highway, that the two turning heads within the site meet the standard sizings in the UDP and that encouragement is given to using other forms of transport. Visibility splays can be implemented through a condition attached to any planning permission. The applicants have expressed a willingness to include yellow line restrictions in their separate S38 application under the Highways Acts and have agreed to make a contribution to highway/environmental improvements which should encourage the use of bicycles for trips to a local shopping parade by future occupiers. The two turning heads within the cul-de-sac (outside the application site) have both been considered suitable as part of earlier planning permissions. There is no requirement for their size to be altered to accommodate the additional development. Staff therefore do not consider that the number of additional houses/parking spaces are likely to result in an unacceptable impact on the public highway.

Impact on Residential Amenity

5.11 The proposal would result in additional accommodation to the rear of the existing frontage development to Essex and Marlborough Roads.

5.12 The proposed 3 and 4-bedroomed properties would be located a minimum of 34m away from the rear elevations of No.s 97 – 103 Essex Road. As such they would be more than the guidance distance of 30m and staff do not

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 8

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

therefore consider that there would be any adverse impact on the occupiers of these existing properties.

5.13 The proposed windows in the front elevation of the property on Plot 21 nearest the approved Plot 11 directly to the south-west of the site would be approximately 28m from the existing rear elevation of that property. This would be less than the guidance of 30m. Staff do not however consider that the slight shortfall in meeting the guidance figure would, in this case, be significant to the degree that planning permission should be refused on this ground alone.

5.14 The proposal would introduce additional development in a rear garden environment. Whilst such back-land development is generally unacceptable and out of character, the proposed detached properties would be located more than 30m away from the frontage properties and in a similar relationship to the remainder of this cul-de-sac. Staff do not consider that this particular back-land development would result in a loss of residential amenity in this locality.

5.15 Members may place different weight on the issues and make an alternative judgement, nevertheless they will need to take into account that the Appeal Inspector considered, in granting development to the rear of 127 Essex Road (the adjoining site), it was acceptable in terms of its relationship with the existing development and its impact on residential amenity and that the proposed development has a similar relationship with existing development.

Security Considerations

5.16 The Crime Prevention Design advisor has asked for an informative about Secured by Design certification to be added to any planning approval.

Educational Implications:

5.17 The development would have implications for local schools. The Interim Planning Guidance for Educational Needs Generated by New Development indicates that the policy applies retrospectively to piecemeal development and the trigger for requiring a contribution has been reached (10 or more units) across the development. For this number of homes, the 4, three- and four-bed houses would necessitate a contribution towards additional school places of £36,618.

Affordable Housing

5.18 The Interim Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing applies. The development would increase the size of the original proposal for 7 houses to a total of 24, 3- and 4-bedroomed houses. Whilst this total would trigger the current affordable housing requirement (set at 15 dwellings and above), when

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 9

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

the original scheme was granted at appeal, the trigger for the application of affordable housing was 25. As the number of original houses (at 7) was below the trigger point, the Planning Inspector did not consider whether the policy applied or not and the Council, rightly, did not expect the Inspector to give affordable housing any consideration. Nonetheless, the scheme has expanded considerably since the Planning Inspector considered the first 7 homes. The scheme has been incremental in nature but apart from the frontage development at 129 Essex Road (a replacement dwelling) the whole scheme relies on the same road access onto Essex Road.

5.19 At 24 houses, the whole scheme would be expected, under the current affordable housing policy (June 2005), to provide 8 affordable homes. The current application is for 4 houses and it is clearly incapable of providing, on its own, the amount of new affordable homes which the policy suggests for the whole development. Staff consider that when the original application was received in 2003, under the Council’s November 1998 affordable housing policy, the applicants would have been fully aware that in expanding the site, the Council would apply the policy at the appropriate time (once the site reached the trigger of 25 units).

5.20 However, the Council’s affordable housing policy was amended in June 2005 to reduce the trigger point from 25 units to 15 units and to increase the requirement from 25% to 35% affordable units, in recognition of new Government and London-wide (Mayoral) policy.

5.20 In relation to the current application, the whole site would now provide 24 units which would be below the earlier trigger of 25 units but, in total, above the new trigger of 15 units. Nonetheless, applications received after June 2005, including the current application account for 11 units out of the total; which is below the current policy trigger of 15 units. Incrementally therefore the two tallies are now running together such that if either trigger is exceeded, an affordable housing Policy would apply.

5.21 Staff therefore consider that, since neither of the respective triggers have been reached, no affordable housing contribution is required in relation to the current application. Nonetheless, the applicant is advised via an informative that should either trigger be reached through any future application(s), the Council would require development to provide a contribution of affordable housing for the whole site. Given the circumstances, however, the Council would be prepared to consider at least an element of affordable housing being provided through a commuted sum.

Sustainable development:

5.21 While the development is minor in nature it is considered that encouragement should be given to all development being sustainable in the Borough in line

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 10

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

with the IPG on Sustainable design and construction and policies in the London Plan. A suitable informative can be attached to any planning approval.

6. Conclusions

6.1 The principle of residential use of the site is considered to be acceptable. The development of the site would achieve a number of the objectives of sustainable development including making better use of the existing urban area and being within a reasonable distance of a public transport route (Mawney Road) and local shops. The proposal would increase the number of larger family dwellings in the Borough. Staff therefore recommend that planning permission be granted.

Financial Implications and risks:

A Section 106 planning agreement will be entered into to secure a financial contribution towards education needs generated by the development and highway/environmental improvements.

Legal Implications and risks:

A planning agreement will need to be prepared.

Human Resource Implications:

None

EQUALITIES AND SOCIAL INCLUSION IMPLICATIONS:

The Council’s planning policies are implemented with regard to Equalities and Diversity.

Staff Contact: David Lawn Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone No: 432800 E-mail address [email protected]

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive

Background Papers

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 11

Regulatory Services Committee, 1st February 2007

1. The planning application as submitted or subsequently revised including all forms and plans.

2. The case sheet and examination sheet.

3. Ordnance survey extract showing site and surroundings.

4. Standard Planning Conditions and Standard Green Belt reason for refusal.

5. Relevant details of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Article 4 Directions.

6. Copy of all consultations/representations received and correspondence, including other Council Directorates and Statutory Consultees.

7. The relevant planning history.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item10P2421.06 ro 97-103 Essex Rd.DOC 11

Regulatory Services Committee

1 February 2007

OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

Page No. Plan No. Ward Address

1-9 P1971.06 Pettits 73 Main Road Gidea Park Romford 9-15 P2102.06 Havering Hillside Park Bower Farm Road Havering Atte Bower Romford REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06

WARD: Pettits Date Received: 12th October 2006

ADDRESS: 73 Main Road Gidea Park Romford

PROPOSAL: Extension to first floor of existing building for A1 use and addition of new second floor for 2 no. 1/2 bed apartments with access stair to side of building

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out at the end of this report.

SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is located at the junction of Heath Drive and Main Road within the Gidea Park Conservation Area. It is situated on the western edge of the Gidea Park Local Centre. The adjoining neighbours to the site at No. 75 Main Road and nos. 3 - 7 Heath Drive are two storey properties built in 1911 though not forming part of the Exhibition & Competition Housing Areas. These neighbouring properties are in the Arts & Crafts / Edwardian style featuring tiled, pitched roofs, facing brickwork with render and timber detailing and chimneys. To the north and west of the site are residential properties, which form part of the 1911 Exhibition Estate. This site therefore forms part of the 'gateway' into the Exhibition Housing Estate.

The buildings surrounding this site are predominantly from the earlier period, with some properties opposite dating back to the late Victorian period. There is also a 17th century listed building located at No 93 Main Road (The Ship PH).

The site is currently occupied by a two storey flat roofed building. This building was an experimental building providing a drive through facility for a bank and was built in the 1960s. It is now in A1 retail use at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor level.

There is informal parking available on site at the side and rear of the building accommodating 8 vehicles. The whole external site area is hard surfaced.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal has three elements:

1) The extension of the existing first floor creating additional storage space in connection with the ground floor retail use, which will remain in use as an electrical retail store. The proposed first floor extension would project forward such that it is more or less flush with the ground floor.

2) In addition it is proposed to erect a second floor to the existing building. This floor would be set back some 2.8m from the main front wall of the premises. The additional floor would contain one I bedroom unit (flat 1) and one 2-bedroom units (flat 2), one fronting Main Road and the other Heath Drive. The flats would have a floor area of 48m2 and 66m2 respectively. Both properties would have roof terraces. Access to the flats would be via Heath Drive.

comrep_out Page 1 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06

3) An undercover glazed access stairwell 10.5m in height is proposed along the eastern elevation of the building providing access to both the flats and for staff of the retail unit. The proposal also includes internal remodelling of the existing premises and the inclusion of facilities for the disabled.

The reordered building would have a maximum height of 11.2m incorporating a butterfly roof design. The new extensions would be constructed using combination plane infill panels of dark stain horizontal timber boarding, white rendered walls and single ply membrane dark grey roofing. Fenestrations would have steel frames.

8 parking spaces are provided for the development, 6 of which would serve the retail unit with the remaining two spaces serving the two flats. It should be noted that eight car parking spaces currently serve the site. The applicants have also advised that cycle parking would also be made available. Vehicular access would be taken off Heath Drive adjacent to No 3 Heath Drive. This would be in a similar location to the existing vehicular access. Refuse collection and deliveries would take place on the Heath Drive frontage and would be stored within a purpose built structure constructed using blue engineering bricks with dark timber screen.

The agent has submitted a design and access statement, which seeks to justify the design of the proposed development. It refers amongst other things to the site being underdeveloped for a prominent corner position. The concrete car parking yard has no landscaping features and is considered to form a weak western end to the shopping parade and unattractive entrance to the 1911 Garden Suburb site.

HISTORY:

ES/ROM/259/55 - Proposed one storey bank premises, approved.

259A/55 - Bank premises-details, approved.

259B/55 - Bank- amended plan, approved.

L/HAV/146/70 - Ground floor and first floor extension, approved.

2265/71 - New iron fire escape, approved.

P1445.97 - External alterations to form hi-fi retail shop, refused.

P0271.03 - New lower ground car park for 14 cars, demolish existing 2 storey retail building and rebuild new 3 storey plus penthouse with increased retail on ground floor and 11, 1 bed flats above - Refused

C0001.03 - Demolish existing 2 storey retail building and rebuild new 3 storey plus penthouse with increased retail on ground floor and 11, 1 bed flats above new lower ground car park for 14 cars.

C0004.04 - Conservation consent to demolish existing 2 storey retail building & rebuild new 3 storey building with ground floor retail & residential above - Withdrawn

comrep_out Page 2 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06

P1481.04 - Demolish existing 2 storey building & rebuild bigger ground floor retail with 2 storeys of residential above containing 8 flats - Withdrawn

CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: The application was advertised as development affecting the Gidea Park Conservation Area. 179 letters of objections have been received, 137 of which are a pro forma letter. The objections are on the following grounds:

- Inappropriate development in a Conservation Area

- Dominant modernist style

- Insufficient parking

- Intrusive in the street scene

Gidea Park and District Civic Society also object to the proposal. Stating amongst other things "it is wholly out of keeping in design and height with surrounding properties". Reference has also been made to the limited number of parking spaces provided for the development and the impact of the proposed staircase on the residential amenities of no 75 Main Road.

English Heritage raise no objection to the proposal and state the following "... do not object to the design of the proposed extension to the existing building. I am pleased that much of the existing fabric is to be retained as the building has a place in the history of modern banking as the first 'drive thru' bank. It is also an interesting example of post-war architecture. The architects appear to have studied the building carefully and to have drawn on the original character of the building to inform the proposed extensions." They go on to advise that "suitable conditions are placed on any permission to ensure that any extensions are of similar quality to the original building." They have also advised that the proposal would not affect the setting of the nearby listed building.

Borough Crime Prevention Design Advisor has been consulted and has suggested that an informative be attached advising the applicant to apply for Secured by Design accreditation, should planning permission be granted.

STAFF COMMENTS: The issues to be considered in the determination of this case are the principle of residential development in this location whether the development preserves or enhances character or appearance of this part of the Gidea Park Conservation Area, impact on parking and congestion in the locality and effect on the amenity of adjacent occupiers. The relevant national guidance are Planning Policy Guidance Notes PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPG3 on Housing and PPG15 on Planning and the Historic Environment. There are also a number of relevant UDP policies against which the development should be judged against, which are policies ENV1, ENV3, ENV23, HSG5, TRN18, SHP1, SHP4 and Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Amenity Space. DC68 of the Havering Local Development Framework and policies 3D.3, 4B.6 and 4B.11 of the London Plan are also material considerations.

Principle of development

The site is located within the fringe area of a Major Local Centre where generally only A1, A2 and

comrep_out Page 3 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06

A3 uses would be allowed at ground floor. The retail use would remain at ground floor and as a result the scheme would not conflict with the shopping policies for this area.

Policy ENV3 seeks to ensure that development preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area ensuring that the standard of design for both new development and alterations/extensions to existing buildings is sympathetic to the particular character or appearance of the area.

National planning guidance for conservation areas within PPG15 allows for extensions to existing buildings provided the proposal preserver or enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area. On this basis, the principle of development on this site is considered to be acceptable.

Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area

The site is located in a prominent location within the conservation area. Members may recall attempts to have the building on the site demolished and the site redeveloped for retail and 11 residential units (P0271.03). Planning permission was refused and a subsequent application for a similar type of scheme albeit with less units i.e. 8 was withdrawn following discussions with staff. A private application was submitted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) with a view to having the building Listed this request but was refused as it was not considered to be a building of listable quality. Resulting from the refusal of planning permission and the level of opposition from local residents to the application for the demolition of the building the applicants have revised the scheme such that the original building is now retained.

PPG15 stresses the need to preserve or enhance the character of conservation areas. At paragraph 4.14 it states that "special attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area". PPG15 sets out a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution towards the Conservation Area.

PPG15 also refers to the need to have special regard to matters such as "scale, height, form, massing, respect for the traditional pattern of frontages, vertical or horizontal emphasis, and detailed design".

Policy ENV3 carries this advice forward stating that new development should be sympathetic to the particular character or appearance of the conservation area and proposals should be resisted which would be detrimental to the environment of the conservation area or which fail to preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

Whilst it is recognised that this 1960"s building provides little to the architectural quality of the locality and is of a different style and era to the surrounding buildings, it is recognised as being a building of historical interest not least because it is understood to be the first drive through bank in London. However, it could be argued that as the "Gateway" to the Conservation Area the building fails to emphasise its position particularly on such a prominent corner. To this regard the applicant has not only retained the original building but also given the building an uplift which in the opinion of staff benefits and indeed enhances the Conservation Area. The applicant advises that the existing

comrep_out Page 4 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06 building is to be cleaned and made good, which will highlight its original features. The recessed roof elements, provision of horizontal windows and front and rear-facing terraces improve the elevational treatment of the building. It is considered that the proposed new building would fit in well in the context with the street scene and neighbouring buildings and would make a positive contribution to the locality of the area.

In retaining the original building the proposed extensions do not emulate the adjacent Arts and Craft style buildings which staff consider may potentially have resulted in an unacceptable pastiche. In justifying the proposal the applicant states "It is important not to introduce a further different style (for example a contemporary form) so a careful reworking of the mid-century modern style was considered the most appropriate." However reference to these neighbouring buildings has been made in the use of materials to be used in the development, i.e. white render and dark stain timber. Aside from relating to existing neighbouring buildings the proposed materials have the effect of giving the extensions the appearance of subordinate additions and thus emphasising the original main building. Should Members be minded to grant planning permission a condition should be imposed requiring material samples to be submitted for approval.

The "drive thru" aspect which is key to the building¿s importance is in the opinion of staff to be further highlighted as a result of this proposal. The applicant intends to construct a stair well frame to the eastern elevation of the building the area of the original "drive thru". It should be noted that the existing "drive thru" canopy and window as well as the existing car parking space to its frontage would be retained. The stair well frame would provide a weather barrier to the stairs and be constructed with glazed infill fins to give the illusion of openness and to reinforce the historic importance of the accessway.

The height and massing of the building is deemed appropriate, whilst higher than the buildings immediately adjacent it is of a similar height and in some case lower than a number of other buildings in the vicinity. Staff consider that the proposed redeveloped building would sit comfortably in relation to adjoining properties capturing the material detailing of the neighbouring Arts and Craft properties and also in the street scene with a resultant building that not only has its own integrity but enhances the Conservation Area. The proposal would create a stronger "Gateway" feature which does not detract from the existing character of the area. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal accords with the principles of ENV3 and PPG15.

Impact on Amenity

The existing building on-site is located 7m from the residential boundary No. 3 Heath Drive (a two- storey semi detached property). The proposed extension would increase its height at this point from 7.7m to 11.2 an increase of 3.5m. Assessed against the usual policy test set out in Appendix 1 the relationship between the existing dwelling and proposed increase in height of the building is acceptable.

The flank wall of no. 3 Heath Drive contains a first floor landing and bedroom window facing towards the site. Two windows are proposed in the newly constructed second floor of the northern elevation of the building adjacent to this residential property. The windows serving a kitchen and a bedroom to flat 1 have been designed as high-level windows which would reduce the impact and outlook onto this property. The proposed terrace serving this flat in the north-western corner of the site would

comrep_out Page 5 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06 look onto the flank wall and front of No.3 Heath Drive and has been designed with fixed directional louvers. Given the design of these windows, the location of the terrace and the flank to flank distances staff are satisfied that no undue material harm would result.

With regard to the proposed covered stairwell located to the eastern elevation of the building it would be built 20mm from the common boundary with No. 75 Main Road, which is set between 4m and 8m off the boundary. The elevation fronting 75 Main Road would be of a white render finish. Two windows are proposed in the first and second floor providing additional light to the stairwell should members be minded to grant planning permission it is recommended that these windows be obscure glazed. The structure would not harm the setting of this neighbouring building.

Amenity space would be available to residents in the form of private roof terrace areas and a rear outdoor amenity space which also provide a setting for the building. This provision totals some 88m2 in area slightly less than 90m2 suggested by Supplementary Planning Guidance. Staff consider that the provision to be acceptable.

Highways / Parking Issues

A total of eight car parking spaces are proposed to serve the development. Two spaces are proposed to serve the residential element resulting in one space per unit located along the northern elevation of the building. The remaining six spaces would serve the retail unit. Eight spaces currently serve the retail unit. Access to seven of the spaces would be from Heath Drive adjacent to the northern boundary of the site utilising an existing crossover. To the Main Road frontage, adjacent to No. 75, one car parking space is proposed.

Given the proximity to bus routes along Main Road, Gidea Park station and considering Government guidance which aims to reduce car parking at appropriate levels staff are satisfied with the parking provision for both aspects of the scheme. Indeed assessed against Appendix 3 of the UDP the reordered retail element of the scheme generates a need for three parking spaces six spaces are provided.

The proposed intention to increase the amount of storage serving the store is likely to reduce the number of deliveries to the store which is currently to the Main Road frontage. Deliveries to the residential flats would be via Heath Drive. Staff conclude that there are no material objections to the parking and highways aspects of the scheme.

Sustainability

The applicants have submitted a sustainability statement. The statement accords with the principles of the Council's IPG on Sustainable Development and Construction. Amongst other things the applicants are to provide solar glazing, with each apartment fitted with a solar hot water heating system, with solar vacuum collectors on the roof.

Separate cycle bays are provided for both aspects of the development i.e. the retail element and the residential element. Indeed the applicants have advised that they are "keen to encourage their staff to commute in an environmentally friendly way." To this end they provide a cycle purchase scheme.

comrep_out Page 6 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06

Members should note that the applicant has incorporated secure by design advice, and a condition is recommended.

Conclusion

The application proposal would not detract from the street scene, or diminish the amenity of adjacent residential properties. It would enhance the character or appearance of the Gidea Park Conservation area. Staff are of the opinion that this proposal sufficiently overcomes the objections of the previous schemes. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

RECOMMENDATION Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:

1. SC4 (Time limit) 3yrs 2. SC09 (Materials) 3. SC06 (Parking provision) 4. SC10B (details of work and samples of material) 5. SC32 (Accordance with plans) 6. Prior to the commencement of development, an Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall incorporate an energy demand assessment and shall detail the energy efficiency design measures and renewable energy technology to be incorporated into the final design of the development. The statement shall demonstrate how the development will displace at least 10% of carbon dioxide emissions through on site renewable energy measures and energy efficient technology above and beyond Building Regulation requirements. The development or relevant phase thereof shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the agreed energy statement and the measures identified therein.

Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainability in accordance with the Councils Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainable Design and Construction and Policies 4A.7, 4A.8 and 4A.9 of the London Plan.

7. No external plant or equipment shall be installed at the site unless details of its design, appearance and location have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

comrep_out Page 7 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06

8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details that show how the principles and practices of the Secured by Design Award Scheme are to be incorporated into the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any construction works. Once approved, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities reflecting the guidance set out in PPS1 and in pursuance of the Council¿s duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in exercising its planning functions.

9. No development shall be commenced until a sustainability statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall outline how the development will meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction to incorporate the seven measures identified in Policy 4B.6 of the London Plan and shall be required to demonstrate that the development will achieve a ECO HOMES / BREEAM (Retail) rating of Very Good or better. The developer shall provide a copy of the final Building Research Establishment (BRE) certificate confirming that the development design achieves a minimum ECO HOMES / BREEAM (Retail) rating of Very Good. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the agreed Sustainability Statement and if required by the Local Planning Authority, BREEAM Post Construction Assessment shall be carried out on all or a sample of the development to ensure that the required minimum rating has been achieved.

Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainability in accordance with the Councils Interim Planning Guidance on Sustainability and Policies 4A.7 of the London Plan.

comrep_out Page 8 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P1971.06

1. INFORMATIVES

1. The London Borough of Havering fully supports Secured by Design accreditation where appropriate. It is recommended that the applicant consider applying for this award, which is a national police initiative, designed to encourage the building industry to adopt crime prevention measures and create safe, secure and sustainable environments.

2. The Council encourages the developer to apply the principles of the Considerate Constructors Scheme to the contract for the development.

3. REASON FOR APPROVAL:

The proposed scheme is considered in policy terms to be acceptable. The proposal reflects current Government policy and advice on creating sustainable development in terms of design and materials, the efficient use of land with easy access to facilities and does not have a materially adverse impact on amenity and preserves and enhances the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore, considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policies ENV1, ENV3, ENV23, HSG5, TRN18, SHP1, SHP4 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and policies 3D.3 and 4B.11 of The London Plan and policy DC68 of the Local Development Framework.

APPLICATION NO: P2102.06

WARD: Havering Park Date Received: 1st November 2006

ADDRESS: Hillside Bower Farm Road Havering Atte Bower Romford

PROPOSAL: Replacement Bunglalow

RECOMMENDATION: The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions set out in this report.

SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is comprised of a small, low-rise single-storey detached property with single storey side extension. The site has a frontage width of about 22m and a depth of 85m. There is a low hedge to the boundary of the site. The site area is just under 0.19 hectares. The site is in an area of Metropolitan Green Belt and the Havering Ridge Area of Special Character. Bower Farm Road is a single track road with passing points.

There are a number of out-buildings on the site, including a detached single storey building close to

comrep_out Page 9 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2102.06 the rear of the main building (the wash house) to which is attached a small caravan. The remainder are a series of small sheds.

The surrounding area is mainly open rural or wooded (south) with a single neighbouring property (The Poplars) to the West of the site. Further to the west are the farm buildings of Bower Farm (60- 70m from the site) and to the East the nearest neighbour is more than 120m (at the edge of Havering village). Other properties are not readily visible from the site which lies on a gently sloping site (slopes down to the north) in an undulating landscape.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is a resubmission following the refusal of two schemes, one for a replacement chalet bungalow and stable block (P1129.05) and the second for the erection of a replacement chalet bungalow with basement (P2305.05). This proposal is for the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with a bungalow with lower ground floor. The proposal would also involve the removal of existing sheds, outbuildings and the caravan.

The proposed building would be L-shaped and would be a maximum 10.5m wide (6.4m to the rear) and have a maximum depth of 15m. The part-basement level room would be 6.5m by 6.4m. The roof would be hipped and pitched with a ridge height of 4.1m (previously 3.7m) above ground levels which fall away to the rear. The accommodation would provide a kitchen/dining room, living area, utility/WC, 3 bedrooms and a bathroom to the ground floor and a basement room to the lower ground floor. The roof would extend over two covered areas either side of the living area, as in the previously recently refused scheme.

Due to the change in levels across the site (falling to the rear), the "basement" would have high level windows and the rear of the property would appear as 1 and a half storeys with the ridge height appearing to be 4.6m above ground level. There would be windows in all 4 elevations.

According to the applicant's calculations, the overall volume of the proposed bungalow would be 317 cubic metres.

Ground levels would be altered with up to a 1.2m depth of material being removed from the front garden area and side garden areas, together with the material to be removed for the proposed lower ground level. A new retaining wall and external steps would be provided approximately 4m in front and 3m either side of the proposed dwelling.

The proposal indicates that the rear part of the site would be used for pasture and animals, nonetheless, there is no proposal to change the use of this land from residential to agricultural in this application.

There is no current vehicular access to the site. It is proposed that a vehicular access would be formed to the access track to the eastern side of the application site. A hardstanding area for parking is proposed adjacent to the access which would cover an area of just over 105 square metres.

HISTORY: P1129.05 Chalet bungalow to replace existing (with stable block) - Refused 9/8/05. P2305.05 Erection of replacement bungalow - Refused 10/2/06.

comrep_out Page 10 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2102.06

CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: 6 occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties were notified of this application, an advert was placed in a local paper and a Site Notice was posted. One letter was received from a neighbouring occupier raising no objections to the proposed development. From information provided previously, it would appear that this letter of support has been written by a relative of the applicant. An email was also received raising no objection and suggesting that the proposed dwelling would look far better than the existing "make shift" building.

Andrew Rosindell MP has written in support of the application.

OFFICERS' COMMENTS: The application has been called in by Councillor Andrew Mann as he is minded to support the applicants.

The main issues are the impact of the proposed dwelling on visual amenity, on the open character of the Metropolitan Green Belt and Havering Ridge Area of Special Character and on the amenities of occupiers of adjoining/nearby properties. Policies ENV1, ENV26, GRB2, GRB14, HSG1 and TRN2 are relevant, as is guidance contained in SDG on Residential Extensions and Alterations and car parking provision in IPG on Housing Density. Policies 3A.1 and 3D.8 of The London Plan are also relevant as are PPG3 on Housing and PPG2 on Green Belts.

Housing policy indicates that where land becomes available outside specifically designated areas it should normally be used for housing. However, the proposal site is within the Green Belt, one of the specifically designated areas, where its protection and enhancement is of paramount importance. Green Belt policy indicates that there is a presumption against new development so as to avoid, amongst others, materially affecting the open nature of the green belt. Nevertheless, Green Belt policy does indicate that consideration will be given to extensions and rebuild of residential properties. Criteria restrict the increase in cubic capacity to not normally exceeding 50% more than that of the original building and that the maximum impression of space around the building should be achieved.

Planning application P1129.05 was for a residential building of 455 cubic metres, an increase of 170% on the original dwelling. This excluded the volume of the proposed stable block. This application was refused.

Planning application P2305.05 was for a replacement residential building with a cubic capacity of 337 cubic metres above ground level; an increase of 100%. This application was refused on the grounds that no exceptional circumstances had been submitted, that the building was prominent and unsympathetic to the open character of the Green Belt due to its size, massing and bulk and that the proposed landscaping was inappropriate.

The current application indicates an overall volume of 317 cubic metres. However, this figure appears to exclude the two areas which would be oversailed and covered by the main roof. Case Law identifies that such areas which are bounded on two sides by full walls and are incorporated underneath the roof of the dwelling should not be excluded for the purposes of volume calculations. Staff therefore consider, for the purposes of this application that the proposed volume is 363 cubic metres, i.e., larger than the previously refused (P2305.05) scheme's 337 cubic metres.

In the previous application (P2305.05), the "original property" was considered to be more than

comrep_out Page 11 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2102.06 simply the single storey dwelling (which on its own has a volume of 124 cubic metres) and included the detached washroom which was considered to provide a necessary amenity. These two elements totalled 168 cubic metres. In this instance, the applicant has indicated that the "original property" has a volume of 180 cubic metres and that the proposed increase would therefore be 76%. The "original dwellinghouse" includes a caravan which is accorded a volume of 13 cubic metres. The caravan (though a permanently attached element to the wash-house) is not considered for the purposes of this calculation to be part of the original house as it is neither a permanent structure nor is it incapable of being removed from the property, although it does appear to provide additional accommodation. The applicant has confirmed that a relative remembers that the outhouse and caravan were in positions dueing the second world war and that they were in use as accommodation in 1948. It is therefore considered that the caravan, unusually, can be included in the figure for the "original property" as it was "as so built" in 1948. This gives a figure for the original property of 181 cubic metres.

The proposed replacement dwelling (363 cubic metres) would therefore represent a 100% increase over and above the volume of the original dwelling.

The reasoned justification to Policy GRB14 does indicate that the size of the original property will be taken into account such that where proposals involve a small property, more substantial extensions or rebuilding may be appropriate.

Policy ENV26 is concerned that any new development does not damage the special character of the area and does not mar the skyline or detract from pleasant views in or of the area.

The proposed dwellinghouse would be no closer to the western boundary than the existing single storey development but it would be significantly wider and deeper with a higher pitched roof than currently. It is acknowledged that various out buildings would be removed. However, these outbuildings are low level and those to the rear of the current dwelling would be replaced by a rear section which is one and a half storey. It is considered that the removal of outbuildings, some located well away from the current building, would be marginally beneficial in increasing in the impression of open space around the proposed building and is therefore welcomed. However, it is appropriate than a suitable condition is attached to any planning permission to restrict future development of the application site.

Staff further consider that the proposed development would be seen from public viewpoints, in part due to the lack of existing trees or large shrubs either within or on the site boundaries and because the landscape is otherwise open fields. No landscaping scheme is submitted with this current application, however, it is considered that a landscaping scheme would soften the impact of the proposed development and the existing boundary hedging could be allowed to mature to a greater height. A suitable condition could be attached to any planning permission.

The proposal would provide an area of hardstanding 105 square metres to the front of the site for parking and vehicular access together with significant patio areas (at a lower level) to the front (4m deep by 11m wide) and side (3m wide by 17.5m deep). It is considered that the parking area would be capable of parking two vehicles. However, the area of hardstanding proposed, together with the hardstanding of the external patios adjacent to the dwellinghouse, is on balance, considered to be acceptable.

comrep_out Page 12 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2102.06

Highways/car parking issues: Other than in relation to the visual impact described above, there are no highways or parking concerns regarding this development.

Residential amenity: The only other residential development in the near vicinity is The Poplars. The latter property is well screened from the highway and is a significantly smaller single-storey property than that proposed at the application site.

It is not considered that there would be any significant adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, even though there would be windows in all elevations, including virtually on the boundary with the plot immediately to the west of the application site. It is considered however, that windows in this position would need to be obscure glazed via a condition attached to any planning permission, The same would be necessary for windows facing eastwards.

Exceptional circumstances: The applicant has put forward with their submission circumstances which they consider are exception as to allow this proposal in the green belt contrary to PPG2 (green belts). These are:

- that the increase is 76% and the UDP policy allows more than 50% if the original bungalow is small - that two properties have been allowed with greater increases - namely White Bungalow, Southend Arterial Road and Ely Cottage, Nags Head Lane

The calculation of the original building and the proposal's size has been considered above. While there is some disagreement between the applicant's calculation and that of the Council in both the original dwelling and the proposed dwelling, nonetheless, both figures are above the 50% increase and no claim is being made by the applicant that the proposed dwelling would be within a 50% increase. There is also no change in the footprint of development which was previously refused planning permission (P2305.05).

The circumstances of each site are unique and material only to those application sites such that they would have been taken into account at the time of deciding those applications. While properties have been extended in excess of 50% of the original dwelling in the green belt, the individual planning merits and any exceptional circumstances cannot be extend to setting out the exceptional circumstances for other sites. In addition, as each case is considered on its own merits, the suggestion that exceptional circumstances which allow particular developments does similarly not set a precedent for other sites. Indeed, the approval of developments in excess of a 50% increase have occurred in line with the policy but only when individual exceptional circumstances have been taken into account. For example extensions significantly greater than 50% have been allowed where the original property is very small and such an extension is necessary to provide reasonable accommodation. In all cases impact in the Green Belt must be demonstrated to be acceptable. This proposal does represent a more than 50% increase in the existing property.

Policy DC46 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Submission Development Plan Document (LDF) is a material consideration and indicates that replacement buildings will be allowed provided the cubic capacity is not more than 50% greater than that of the original dwelling. The reasoned justification does not allow for flexibility above this and, as such, accords with PPG2 in this

comrep_out Page 13 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2102.06 respect. The latter is also a material consideration and clearly indicates that new dwellings should not be materially larger than the dwelling it replaces unless very special circumstances are demonstrated.

Staff do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances relating to this application or that other larger increases elsewhere set a precedent in considering the individual merits of this current application. However, Staff consider that, on balance, and given the current UDP Policy, that the proposed development would have an impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt and Havering Ridge Area of Special Character but that it would not result in significant and material harm to the open character due to the setting down and low profile roof of the proposed building and because it has some permeability with the provision of covered porches rather than full bricked sections to the front of the building. Staff consider that the proposal would, on balance, be in accordance with current Policy and that the proposal is therefore acceptable. In addition, the existing residential buildings on site are of poor quality and do not offer a modern day quality of building or accommodation, therefore existing UDP Policy permits latitude above 50%.

Conclusion: The main issues are the principle of the proposed development, the effect of the proposal on the open character of the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Havering Ridge and on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Members are reminded that each case must be considered on its own merits and they may consider that, as the original property is small, there is justification for the proposal as a matter of judgement. However, if members take the view that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and that it would have an adverse impact on the open countryside, then refusal of permission may be considered on the grounds of impact on the open character of the Metrololitan Green Belt and the character of the Havering Ridge of Special Character. Staff however consider that the development would be acceptable and in accordance with Policies ENV1, ENV26, HSG1, GRB2 and GRB14 of the Unitary Development Plan. However, in view of the circumstances, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

RECOMMENDATION Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:

1. SC4 (Time limit) 3yrs 2. SC06 (Parking provision) 3. SC09 (Materials) 4. SC11 (Landscaping) 5. SC32 (Accordance with plans)

comrep_out Page 14 of 15 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 1st February 2007 OUTSIDE STATUTORY PERIOD

APPLICATION NO: P2102.06

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E, F and G and Part 2 Class A, no enlargement, improvement or other alteration, no enlargement of the roof, no other alteration to the roof, no construction of a porch, no provision within the curtilage of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool or maintenance, improvement or other alteration, no provision of a hard surface, no erection or provision of an oil storage container, no erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall take place unless permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:-

In the interests of amenity and to enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over future development, and in order that the development accords with Unitary Development Plan policies ENV1, GRB2 and GRB14. 7. The residential curtilage of the new dwellinghouse shall not extend beyond the area hatched in black, as shown on the approved plans.

Reason: To protect the open nature of the Metropolitan Green Belt from residential incursion and to comply with Policy GRB2 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan

1. INFORMATIVE:

1. The applicant is advised that, due to the proposal's substantial increase in volume over and above that of the original property, any further (even minor) extensions to the approved property in the Metropolitan Green Belt may not be acceptable.

2. Reason for approval:

The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the aims, objectives and provisions of Policy ENV1, GRB2 and GRB14 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan.

comrep_out Page 15 of 15 MEETING DATE ITEM

REGULATORY SERVICES 1 FEBRUARY 2007 COMMITTEE 12

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: Planning Contravention – 3 Church Lane, Wennington

PROPOSAL: Alleged planning contravention. Construction of a rear dormer without planning permission

WARD: Rainham and Wennington

SUMMARY

This report concerns the unauthorised construction of a rear dormer to a two storey terraced cottage at 3 Church Lane, Wennington within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The dormer has been built without planning permission and it is highly unlikely that if an application were submitted it would be approved. It is considered that the rear dormer materially harms visual and residential amenity, including the streetscene and appearance of the Green Belt contrary to Policy ENV1 and GRB14 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan. Authority is sought for Enforcement Notices to be issued and served.

RECOMMENDATION

That Members consider that Enforcement Notices be issued and served to require within three months:

1. The dormer be removed.

2. That the external roof be reinstated to its condition prior to the erection of the dormer.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item12churchlane.doc 2

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

3. Remove all materials resulting from the removal of the dormer window and all machinery, apparatus, equipment and installations brought onto the property in connection with the unauthorised developments.

In the event of non compliance proceedings be instituted under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

REPORT DETAIL

1. Site Description

1.1 3 Church Lane, Wennington is a two storey terraced residential cottage.

2. Relevant Planning History

2.1 None.

3. Enforcement History

3.1 None.

4. The Planning Contravention

4.1 Without planning permission a rear dormer has been constructed.

4.2 The dormer's volume is some 28 cubic metres.

5. Staff Comments

5.1 The issue is whether it is expedient for the Council to serve planning Enforcement Notices having regard to the provisions of the Havering Unitary Development Plan and other material considerations.

5.2 The rear dormer is not permitted development as a front and rear extension were added to the property prior to the construction of the dormer.

5.3 The owner has been advised that the rear dormer is unauthorised without the benefit of planning permission and its removal has been sought.

5.4 It should also be noted that the rear dormer was constructed without the benefit of Building Regulations Consent and the owner subsequently has been prosecuted in the Magistrates Court on six counts. The owner appealed to the Crown Court against sentence and conviction but was successful on only one count.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item12churchlane.doc 3

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

5.5 In spite of efforts by this Service the owner appears reluctant to remove the rear dormer.

5.6 The relevant policy considerations are ENV1 and GRB14 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan.

5.7 It is considered that the construction of this dormer at the rear of the property, by reason of its bulky design and intrusive appearance causes material harm both visually and to residential amenity, including an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties, the streetscene and the character and appearance of the Green Belt. This is contrary to Policy ENV1 and GRB14 of the Havering Unitary Development Plan.

5.8 Staff conclude, for the above reasons, that any retrospective application which were made is unlikely to be approved. Therefore it is considered expedient to serve an Enforcement Notice.

6. Financial Implications and Risks

6.1 Enforcement action and defence of the Council's case in any appeal will have financial implications.

7. Legal Implications and Risks

7.1 Enforcement action including defence of the Council's case in any appeal will have legal resource implications.

8. Human Resources Implications and Risks

8.1 No implications identified.

9. Equalities and Social Inclusion Implications

9.1 None.

Staff Contact: Patrick Keyes Designation: Planning Control Manager Telephone No: 01708 432685 E-mail address [email protected]

STEPHEN EVANS Chief Executive Background Papers

1. Ordnance Survey extract showing site and surroundings.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item12churchlane.doc 4

Regulatory Services Committee, 1 February 2007

2. Standard conditions.

S:\BSSADMIN\committees\regulatory\reports\2007\070201\070201item12churchlane.doc