Plan: A ~C/Ol/00499/FUL Marks Gate Ward (‘R )
Address: Sungate Nursery Collier Row Road Romford \ Development: Erection of front canopy to shop
Applicant: Mr R Ayres
Introduction and Description of Develapment
The appfication site has a total area of approx. 2 hectares and is located on the south east side of Collier Row road between Sungate House and the &cess to Romford FC. football club and the Abbey Care home, to the north. The front part of the site is used as a garden centre and to the rear is a lake, formerly used for sport fishing together with a clubhouse building, currently used for residential purposes by the applicant. The current application is partly retrospective and relates to the er%ction of a front canopy in three gable sections with a total size of 5m deep and 21.5m to replace an existing canopy built without planning permission. The canopy is util or the storage of bulky items for sale including sacks of potatoes and other vegetables in connection with a retail grocery shop to the rear that was formerly the main sales area for the garden centre.
The premises are located within the Green Belt,
Background
Originally the site was split between this borough and the London Borough of Havering. Only 0.37 of th6 frontage was in this borough containing the main sales building, plant display area and the applicant’s bu low. The rear part of the site, formerl’y within Havering, contained at least five b gs for which no planning consent appeared to have been granted and the fishing clubhouse has been extended and converted to a house without consent. It would seem that the buildings had become legal due the length of time \ elapsed since erection, and the use of the house recently received a Lawful Use Certificate to regularise the use.
The site has along history, much of which is relevant to t e current application. The site was originally grazing Iand Owned by the Crown Estates, until it3 sakto the applicant and subsequent conversion to a nursery in 1981. Over the next few years the use changed r gradually to a garden centre and this use was regularised by consent issued in April 1987. In 1992 an application was approved to extend the main sales building and a substantial landscaping scheme was approved to the frontage. However although the building was extended the landscaping Gas not put in.
In 1998 the applicant considered the sale of.the premise and an application for a pub restaurani was submitted. This was refused consent on the 22nd June1998.
In Febl999 an application was submitted to retain t&o additional buildings erected on the site for use for the sale of pets ad aquatic plants. In return for favourable consideration of the application, the applicant made substantial attempts to tidy up the site and imbrove the visual appearance of the area. The current siting of the two buildings is a 1 occupied by the residential bungalow, which has been demolished. Also buildings were demolished, including part of a slab manufacturing worksI.-, ______unauthorjsed residential mobile home. These were the buildings formerly in Havering which were exempt from enforcement authority and their removal represents an overall reduction in building area and a significant improvement to the visual aspect of the site, ,,
Since the applicant made the decision to retain the business he has undertaken 1 substantial planting arotind the site frontage similar to that approved in 1992. This softens the site edges and improves the look of the site. Also some planting has been put in within the frontage car park and around the new an dings, The site was previously quite run down but an attempt was made to up age. On this basis the application was approved.
Unfortunately since this time matters have deteriorated again. The appficant erected a link building, a rear storage extension and front canopy to the approved buildings without consent, although subsequently the link and canopy have been approved. It would also appear that the main garden centre sales area has moved into one of the buildings with the other used for storage. The main sales building formerly used is now in operation as a general shop unconnected with the garden centre and two canopies were built to the front and side of the building without consent.
Mlembers will recall that consent was recently refused for the smaller side canopy at the meeting of the Board on 6 Nov for the following reason, \
7% proposed developnient is contrary tc policies C.2, G.3, G7 ot’ the Unitary Development Plan and the advice given in PPG2,in that it does nut constitute an appropriate Green Belt development nor have any vmy special circumstances been demonstrated to outweigh the presumption against the development.
Consultations
None relevant
U.D.P. Palicv
Policy G.2 Appropriate Uses Policy G.3 Acceptable Developments
Policy lissue - Does the application represent ‘very special circumstances’.
Analwis
The Councils adopted policy in respect of Green belt development is based closely on the guidance contained in Planning and Policy Guidance 2 GreenBelt. These list appropriate developments in Green belt locations and include the provision of agriculture and horticulture. It does not include Garden Centres but the current use was approved prior to the adoption of the U. D. P. As such there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development and the applicants must show very special circumstances if such development is to gain approval,
In this instance no evidence has been provided that such circumstances apply in this instance, The use of the shop for a general food store is contrary to a condition imposed on the original garden centre consent which limited sales at the site to the sale of plants, garden tools, fertilisers, garden chemicals, mowers, pets and accessories. The use of the shop itself is under investigation asas toto whetherwhether thethe use has become lawful due td the passage of time. However on the face of it we have the erection of a large canopy to support a use which appears to be unauthorised in the first instance. Notwithstanding this fact the proposal is inappropriate in Green Belt terms purely as an additional structure without consideration of the fact that it extends a use which is also inappropriate under the above policies.
It is considered therefore that there is little option but to recommend refusal for the same reasons as previously.
Recammendatian
That permission be refused for the following reason
The proposed development is contrary to policies G.2, G.3, G7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the advice given-in PPG2 in that it does not constitute an appropriate G Belt development nor have any very circumstances been demonstrat outweigh the,the: presumption against th lopment.
Plan: B DC/01/00487/FUL Marks Gate Ward ( R )
Address: Land Rear of Whalebone North Service Station Whalebone Lane North Romford Essex
Development: Erection of single/two storey building to provide motor vehicle repair and service centre.
Applicant: Eddy Grimstead Motors Ltd
Introduction and Description of DeveloDment
The application site comprises of an Y shaped parcel of land to the rear of the Esso petrol filling station, on the east side of Whalebone Lane North near the junction with Billet road and located in the Green Belt. The site is predominantly surfaced with hardcore an for the sale of small commercial and dotiestic vehicles by the current applicant. In north-west corner is an fronted building possibly used for minor repairs, afthough at the time of the site visit were few tools in the buifding and no hoist or inspection pit. To the side of this is a small sto building that appears little used. In the south east corner is a small sales office bu g which is opposite the entrance to the site from Whalebone Lane North which runs along he south boundary of the frontage filling station. To the north of the site are two residentia properties, one of which, ‘The White t-louse,’ is a Grade ll Listed Building, whilst to the south is an open field. It is across t site is most prominent as there is an open chain link fence to this part of boundary.
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings and erect a new commercial aluminium steel clad structure to be used as a motor vehicle repair and sewice centre with associated office and storage. The bu Ming, which incorporates a two storey o would cover most of the site with two pen areas reserved for car parking. Th which would be constructed of afuminium cladding above a low brick wall, have its back to the open field site with the workshop areas facing the residential properties to the north,
. Backwound
The site has a long pianning history which appears to pre-date planning legislation but there have been tw planning, in 1951 and 1960, for the parking of vehicles on the land to the rear of the petr fifling station, whit now comprises the frontage part of the site. It would seem possible that various vehic related users have occupied the site at times but no permissions have been granted. The current occupier has no permission to use the site for car sales but local knowledge would indicate that the use has been in operation long enough to be lawful although a formal application would be required to confirm this, Members may recall that at he meeting of the 8 August a similar apptication for a workshop on this site was refused permission for the following reasons
1. The proposed development is contrary to policies G.2, G.3, G7 and G. I7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the advice given in PPG2 in that it does nut constitute an appropriate Green Belt development nor have any very special circumstances been demonstrated tol outweigh the presumption against the devebpmeni. 2. The proposal represents an over deve~oj%77ent of this re: loss of amenity to nearby residential properties by reason of noise and disturbance contrary to P o/icy E.3 of the Unitary Development Plan.
A copy of this report is attached as an appendix
Cansuftatians a) Adjoining Occupiers As a result of the consultation exercise letters were received from the occupiers of the two residential properties to the north objecting to the proposaf on the grounds that the site is zoned for Green E3elt purposes. They feel that the use of the site for general industry would be inappropriate and lead to unacceptable noise and .- . disturbance.
5irector of Housing an
Note that the applicants may need authorisation un er the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the propo paint spraying operation. The applioant should be mindful of the potential for contamination.
London Fire and Civil 5efence Authority
No observations
Access Officer
Notes that there is no designated pedestrian access into the site and that a disabled persons parking bay would be good practice.
U.D,P. Policv
G.2 Appropriate Green Belt Uses G.3 e Developments G.7 Underused or Derelict Land G.17 Existing Non Conforming Uses E.3 Small Business Uses DE.33 Setting of a Listed Building
Conflict with all the above policies,
The application as submitted is little different from that previously refused, The scale has been marginally reduced by restricting the length of the north east part of the workshop from 26m to 19.4m. This reduces the floor area of the building by approx. 85 sq, m. that equates to 9.6% of the original building. embers attention is drawn tomtom thethe previousprevious reportreport andand isis notnot consideredconsidered thatthat ttiethe circumstances have materially changed since this was considered. The slight reduction in the overall size of the building does not constitute the very special circumstances required to allow inappropriateinappropriate developmentdevelopment inin thethe GreenGreen BeltBelt .andand itit isis consideredconsidered thatthat thethe application should be refused for the same reasons as before. No additional supporting evidence has been provided.
Recommendation
That planning permission ibebe refused for the following reasons
1. The proposed development is contrary to policies G.2, 6.3, G7 and G.17 cf the Unitary Development Plan and the advice given in PPGZ in that it does not constitute an appropriate Green Belt development nor have any very special circumstances been demonstrated to outweigh the presumption against the development. .-_- . 2. The proposal represents an over development of this restricted site that would result in loss of amenity to nearby residential properties by reason of noise and disturbance contrary to Policy E.3 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Marks GateWard (R)’
Address: Land rear of Whalebone North Service Station, Whalebone Lane North, Chadwell IIeath
Develooment: Erection of sin&/two storev building to nrovide motor vehicle reoair and service centre
Applicant: < Eddy Grimstead Motors Ltd
Introduction and Description of Development
The application site comprises of an ‘L’ shaped parcel of land to the rear of the Esso petrol filling station, on the east side of Whalebone Lane North near the junction with Billet road and located in the Green Belt. The site is predominantly surfaced with hardcore and used for the sale of small b-S commercial and domestic vehicles by the current applicant. In the north-west corner is an open fronted building possibly used for minor repairs, although at the time of the site visit there were few tools in the building and no hoist or inspection pit, To the side of this is a small storage building that appears little used. In the south east corner is a small sales office building which is opposite the entrance to the site from Whalebone Lane North which runs along the south boundary of the frontage filling station. To the north of the site are two residential properties, one of which, ‘The Whit House,’ is a Grade II Listed Building, whilst to the south is an open field. It is across this view that the site is most prominent as there is an open chain link fence to this part of the south boundary.
It is proposed to demo ish the existing buildings and erect a new commercial aluminium steel clad structure to be used as a motor vehicle repair and service centre with associated office and storage. The building, which incorporates a two storey office section, wduld cover most of the site with two open areas reserved for car parking. The building, which would be constructed of aluminium cladding above a low brick wall, have its back to the open field site with the workshop areas facing the residential properties to the north.
Background
The site has a long planing history which appears to pre-date planning legislation but there have been two planning, in 195 1 and 1960, for the parking of vehicles on the land to the rear of the petrol filling station, which now comprises the frontage part of the site. It would seem possible that . various vehicle related users have occupied the site at times but no permissions have been granted. The current occupier has no permission to use the site for car sales but local knowledge would indicate that the use has been in operation long enough to be lawful although a formal application would be required to confirm this.
$.upporting StatemeJnt
A detail statement in support of the proposal was submitted with the application and this is included as an aunendix to this agenda, -_... .i’ .<- .?‘ *’ : . .’ Xn the applicants supporting statement he seeks to convince the Council that these circumstances exist as the site is not an open field but more akin to a Brownfield site. He states that the proposal. would create jobs and enhance the look of the site which would be achieved by more.,traditional materials and planting to the boundaries. He believes that this use would cause little disturbance to the area and represents a limited infill.ing of an existing developed site.
These arguments are rejected on several grounds. The site at present is used for car and van sales and as there is no road frontage it is assumed that it attracts little passing trade which must reduce the number of visits to the site. There are very limited single storey buildings on the site and no evidence of any serious workshop usage, At present the entire site is fairly quiet and non-intrusive since views from the surrounding open land are mostly screened by existing walling and fencing, The proposed building is a large 6m high industrial structure of nearly 9OOm” representing a 580% increase in floorspace, which is not a limited infililling as suggested. The proposed use is B2 general industrial and wholly inappropriate in this Green Belt location especially as it is so close to residential premises to the north which are only 10m - 15m from the main workshop doors of the -*proposed building. It is poi out that both Council policy and Government Guidelines state that the quality of Green Belt not a material factor in its continued protection and it is considered - that the proposal would d ng to enhmce the appearance of the site, The applicant has stated that traditional materials will. be used and that landscaping to the boundaries will be put in. but neither of these aspects feature on the submitted drawings, nor is there room for any substantial planting.
The proposed use will create some employment opportunities on the site, but this is not a re-use of an existing building as identified in government policy and little weight can therefore be given to this issue. Even without the Green Belt issue it is not considered that the application would be acceptable due to the close proximity of residential premises both of which would be severely effected by the proposal by reason of noise and general disturbance from the workshop use. The White House is a listed building and the close proximity of such a large industrial building so close to the boundary of the building would be likely to have a detrimental affect the setting.
Xn conclusion there is not considered to be any justification for the claim that the propos represents the very special circumstances required for an exception to be made and accordingly the application cannot be supported.
Recommendatiion
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons
1. **The proposed development is contrary to policies G.2, G.3, C7 and G. 17 of the Unitary Development Plan and the advice given in PPG2 in that it does not constitute an appropriate Green Belt developinent nor have any very special circumstances been demonstrated to outweigh the presumption against the development.
2. The proposal represents an over development of this restricted site that would result in loss of amenity to nearby residential properties by reason of noise and disturbance contrary to Policy E.3 of the Unitary Development Plan. ___.~
\
.;:. _. ‘) .* .-: ..I)> .“*.$ ._. c.. P. . . . :.. .
1 . . . . . *‘. $2 *I f ;” I . .._
4
.:2-j”
3.
p-
; I ” Consultations
.’ a> Adjoining Occupiers As a result of the consultation exercise letters were received from the occupiers of the two residentialt properties to the north objecting to the proposal on the grounds that the site is zoned for Green Belt purposes. They feel that the use of the site for general industry would be inappropriate and lead to unacceptable noise and disturbance. . . b) Director of Housing and Health
Note that the applicants may need authorisation under the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the proposed paint spraying operation. The applicant should be mindfu1 of the potential for land contamination.
-:c> London Fire and Civil &fence Authority Detail observations made which have been sent to the applicants for confirmation.
4 London Borough of Havering No response received at the time of preparation of this report, but it has been verbally confirmed that objections will be raised on grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
e> Thames Water
No objection
UDP Police
G.2 Appropriate Green Belt Uses G.3 Acceptable Developments G.7 Underused or Derelict Land G.17 Existing Non Conforming Uses E*3 Small Business Uses DE.33 Setting of a Listed Building. Conflict with all the above policies,
Analysis
The adopted UDP pohcy in respect of green belt development is based closely on the guidance - contained in Planning and Policy Guidance 2 (Green Belts), which was revised in January 1995 just prior to the adoption of the Councils own policies as contained in the UDP as listed above. ’ These set out appropriate developments in Green belt locations but do not include the provision of industrial uses. As such there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development and the applicants must show very special circumstances if such development is to gain approval PPG2 states that these circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Plan: C DC/O1 /00124/FUL Goresbrook Ward (A)
Address: 255-259 Heathway, Dagenham
Development: Erection of. extract ducting and installation of ventilator grilles
Applicant: McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd
Introduction and Description of Devebpment
The application premises comprise a 7 metre wide section of 255-259, Heathway, adjacent to IO Station Parade and previously occupied by Gateway supermarket. Dagenham Heathway station is located immediately to the north of the site,
--..This application relates to the installation of a 7 metre high &tract duct and two ventilator grilles. on the western end of the south facing wall of the property and to the north of rear gardens at 32-34 Tilney Road.
@&qr,ound,
Planning permission was granted in April 2000 ‘(dtiplicate applications: ’ DC/99/00575/FUL & DC/99/00576/FUL) for the change of use for this part of 255 259 Heathway to A3 (food and drink). The consent was granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of a one-off contribution of f350 towards the provision of a litter bin or litter collection facilities in the area. To date the Agreement has not been . signed. r’ - _. I . I ,,, I 3 !‘? ; ---Y ‘ .f’. _~I ” ._: .; : i ., ;I. ,.t The planning permission condition;; that d&ails of’extr&&ducti~ should be ” ““’ ‘- ’ ’ submitted to and approved by the focal planning authority prior to the-A3 use commencing. I Permission was granted in October 2000 (DC/O0/0051,3/FUL) for the-use of the first a- floor of the building for .a Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure) use., .- : . . ---. :. .-..,‘-. . Consultations
ai Adjoining occupiers
,, .,: ...... Two objections were received from the fieighbdiiring residerits, Conkern was . * raised by one of the objectors that the grilles would lead to strong smells drifting over the occupiers property. In a dition this objector raised concerns over the creation of litter and the added parking,caused .as a result of the restaurant and that their property would be devalued. The second objector stated their own and other people’s objection to the restaurant and the leisure club above it and questioned the Council’s wilfingness to listen to the thoughts of local people.
b) Director of Housing and Health - Environmental Protection
Initially expressed concerns that no odour control measures were specified in the application, WDPWDP Policv
Policy 58 Food and drink uses
,NoNo policy issue.
Anafvsis
As members will recall, the change of use of this property was granted planning consent in April 2000. Accordingly matters associated with the provision of an A3A3 use, such asas litterlitter andand parking,parking, havehave beenbeen addressedaddressed andand thethe CouncilCouncil considers considers thisthis site is appropriate for such a use.
This application provides for thethe installationinstallation of two aluminium ventilationventilation grillesgrilles andand aa *-seven metre kitchen extract duct. Policy S8 stipulates that such development should provide for the hygienichygienic emissionemission ofof fumesfumes and smellssmells andand shouldshould bebe ocated to minimise visual and environmental.impact.
The initial concerns with respect to odour control have been met by the applicant to the satisfaction of Environmental Protection and the development is therefore considered to be appropriate to this location and will. not impair the environment for local residents.
In terms ofof visualvisual impactimpact thethe grillesgrilles andand thethe extractextract ductduct areare locatedlocated on a large, blank, metre high wall, adjacent to Dagenham H station and adjacent to the ail units on StationStation Parade. The wall is ext nattractive andand itit isis notnot considered that the proposed worksworks wouldwould haire have ariy any appreciableappreciable adverseadverse implctimpact onon the visualvisual amenityamenityof of the area. 1.. ,Recommendatfon
That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition: . 1, The extract ventilationsystem and odour control equipment hereby approved shall be installed inin accordanceaccordance withwith thethe details submittedsubmitted toto thethe CouncilCouncil inin Ramm Brand Architect’s letter dated 4 April 2001, Such approved equipment shall thereafter be operated at all times when cooking is carried out and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The external ducting shall be removed when thethe authorisedauthorised useuse ofof thethe premises for the sale of hot food ceases. 1 motarhl -.with the permistion < on behalf of the Contmller of I Stationery Office (C)Cmwn CoWright. Unouthorised MapsheebTQ4984NW reproduction infringes Crown C wright and may leod to prosecution or civil pmceeamgs. Date:-4-Dee-200 1 LB. of Barking and Dagenhom. Town Hall, Barking, _ _. Prnrll rrocl hue- I Lr.et'!~h No.LA 086282 (2000). Essex, ICI 1 7LU Tel:- 020 8592 4500
Plan: D DC/Of/O0606/FULDC/of/O06O6/FuL Heath Ward (R)(PI)
Address: 36 Mount Road, Dagenham
Development: Retention of rear dormer window
Applicant: Mr J Agboola
introductionIntroduction andand DescriptimDescriptim ofof Development
The application premises is a two storey end of terrace house located on the southern side of Mount Road. The house has an existing single storey rear extension and a first floor part width rear extension. To the eastern side of the house is a pedestrian access to the rear of the properties in Te pieple Avenue, The dormer -e-i window has already been erected and stands 2.30 tres in height and 5.19 metres The dormer is set in from the eaves of the roof by 700mm and by 600mm western edge where it adjoins number 34 Mount Road. However it is-not set in from the ridge ofof the roof or the eastern boundary. The dormer would be finished in hanging tiles.
Background
Town planning permission waswas grantedgranted lastlast yearyear forfor thethe erectionerection ofof aa groundground floorfloor extension with a depth of 3.60metres, and aa part widthwidth first floor,rear extension projecting 3.30 metres and set in from the adjoining property by 2.80 metres. Both extensions have been finished with a mono-pitched roofs.
Cansultatim
a) Adjoining Occupiers
The occupiers of numbers 93 and 95 Temple Avenue have objected to the proposal on the grounds that it creates a loss of light and privacy, and is visually dominant and unsightly.
UDP, Poltcy
H22 - Extensions and Alterations,
Policy issue - Dormer window not set in from‘ all roof edges.
Analysis
The application development is contrary to policy H22 of the UDP which states that rear dormer windowswindows shouldshould bebe setset inin fromfrom allall rocfrocf edges and shoushou d not dominate the originaloriginal building.building. ItIt isis consideredconsidered thatthat thisthis particular particular dormer dormer isis overbearingoverbearing and has altered the original character of the roofscape to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.
It is understood that the applicant thought that he did not require planning permission fsr the rear dormer window and therefore erected it without seeking planning permission. This confu i shown onon thethe applicationapplication for the groundground andand firstfirst floorfloor extensions.extensions. TheThe applicantapplicant waswas advised at that time that this was visually unacceptable and itit was removed. The applicant was advised however that if the dormer was constructed and completed first it would be permitted development not requiring consent. He was further advised that it would be in his best interests to have a planning officer inspect the work on completion of the dormer to ensure that the correct sequence had been followed. However the applicantapplicant diddid notnot followfollow thisthis adviceadvice andand constructed the window first.first. ItIt transpires that he had asked the Building Control Section ifif it matteredmattered whichwhich way round itit waswas constructedconstructed andand theythey hadhad confirmedconfirmed that that it itdid did not not matterThis matter. This isis duedue toto the fact that under their legislation it makes no difference. Despite this apparent conflict of information the applicant neglected to seek an explanation from the planning section or his agents who had given him different advice and explained the reasons behind it. As such it falls to the Board to ake a decision based on the planning merits of the case. :.I..e -,- The adjoining occupiers at number 93 and 95 Temple Avenue live more than 10 metres away from the application property and face the eastern flank wall of the house, These properties will not be greatly affected by the dormer window in terms of loss of lightlight duedue toto the distance between the propertiesproperties andand itit isis alsoalso unlikelyunlikely thatthat the proposal would cause any loss of privacy as the flank side wall of the dormer does not have any overlooking windows. However the objectors are also concerned with the visual appearance of the dormer. It is considered that the rear dormer is out of character and scale with bothboth thethe originaloriginal charactercharacter ofof thethe buildingbuilding andand thethe surrounding visual a enity of the neighbourhood.
Flecommendlation
That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
1) The development isis contrarycontrary toto policy H22H22 of the UDP inin thatthat thethe dormerdormer window constitutes aa bulkybulky andand dominantdominant structurestructure whichwhich poorlypoorly relatesrelates toto thethe scale and character of the original building and is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
Members are advised that should this recommendation be agreed Enforcement Action will be undertaken to secure the removal of the dormer window.
i niosion af Clrdnonce Surky roller of Her Majesty3 Scale: -1: 1250 Stationery Office (C)C rown Capyriqht. Unouthoriwd reprduction infrinqes Mapsheet:-TQ4987SW C-n Ctrr--$htYJ” and moy leod to pmsecution or civil procerx Date:- 11 -Dee-2001 LB. of Barking ond Doqenhom. Town Hail, Barking, Ucence NoU 086282 (2000). .A1 _ tssex, Iti1 1 7LU 020 8592 4500
Plan: E DC/OI/OO612i’FUL Longbridge Ward (A)
Address: 109 Lyndhurst Gardens, Barking
Development: Erection of first floor rear extension
Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Stott
lntraduction and Description of Deveiapment
The application property is a threethree bedroom,bedroom, mid terrace house, facing south-west onto LyndhurstLyndhurst Gardens.Gardens. TheThe property has an existingexisting 3.65metre3.65metre deepdeep flatflat roofedroofed rear extension, The proposed development is a first floor rear extension to provide a larger master bedroom with en-suite facilities. The extension would be 6m6m wide and .V -’ 3.1 m deep, andand havehave aa pitchedpitched hip-stylehip-style roofroof toto matchmatch thethe existingexisting roof.roof. TheThe rear section of the flat roof of the existing rearrear extension would be covered with a small mono pitched roof. Both adjoining houses have existi g single storey rear extensions.
Background
The existing rear extension was granted permission in 1986. (86/298/TP)
Consultation,
a) Adjoining occupiers
Comments were received from Mr and Mrs Simpkins the owners of 11 t Lyndhurst Gardens. These raised objection to the proposal on the grounds that it would result in a loss of light and outlook and that it would create an un- neighbourly sense of enc osure, Mr Simpkins also states that his wife receives treatment forfor depressiondepression andand anxiety andand that that any any loss loss ofof lightlight isis likelylikely to resultresult inin seasonal affected disorder.
UDP Policy
HI 7- Alterations and extensions.
No policy issue.
Application placed before the Development Control Board at the request of Ward Councillor.
Analvsis
The initial submitted plans for this proposal were contrary to policy, as the extension projected CL4metresCL4metres deeperdeeper thanthan thethe existingexisting extensionextension atat thethe complainanfs complainanfs house. house. However, following negotiation, amended drawings were submitted indicating that the side walls be chamfered to not infringe a 45O angle measured from the nearest corner of the neighbouring extension and the proposal is now in accordanceaccordance withwith policy. With regard to thethe issuesissues raisedraised it isis notednoted thatthat thethe applicationapplication propertyproperty isis located to thethe north-west of the complainant’s househouse andand thereforetherefore thethe lossloss ofof directdirect sunlight will be minimal.minimal. WhilstWhilst thethe constructionconstruction ofof any extension will bebe likelylikely toto havehave some impact on daylight received by neighbours and affect outlook, the proposal would notnot resultresult inin anyany unacceptableunacceptable harm harm to to neighbcsuring neighbcsuring occupiers.occupiers.
Although the impactimpact ofof thethe developmentdevelopment onon MrsMrs Simpkin’sSimpkin’s healthhealth isis important, important, itit isis not considered,considered, asas previouslypreviously stated,stated, thatthat thethe developmentdevelopment would resultresult inin an , unacceptable loss of light and outlook. It perhaps should be noted that the objectors conservatory was originally constructed with aa transparenttransparent roof,roof, which,which would have prevented the applicant from building the first floor extension. However this was changed to aa solidsolid roof which must have had an impact on the light received to his own ground floor room. Moreover, the proposal is similar to numerous other extensions approved throughout the Borough and refusal of this application could set a precedent to set aside UDP policies in similar circumstances. .._ rF’ In conclusion it is considered that thethe-proposal proposal isis withinwithin UDPU6P policy,policy, willwill havehave limitedlimited harm to neighbours and thatthat the grounds of objection have insufficient weight to warrant refusal of permission.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted.
Plan: F DC/O1/00562/FlJL Village Ward (A)
Address: Land rear of 48 Aldborough Road and adjacent to 35 Manor Road, Dagenham
Development: Erection of two storey semi-detached 33 bedroombedroom #houseshouses
Applicant: Mr R Bloomfield
lntroduetian and Description of Development
The application site comprises an area of land fronting the northern side of Manor Road. The sitesite includesincludes aa portionportion ofof thethe rearrear gardengarden areaarea ofof 4848 AldboroughAldborough RoadRoad and a piece of land currently occupied by 5 unused garages in between the rear of +.*. 50 Aldborough Road and the elevation of 3535 Manor Road e surrounding area comprises a mixture of bunga and two storey residential d ings,
This application proposes the demolition of the existing garages andand thethe erection of two semi-detached three bedroom houses. The two new dwellings include a bay window feature at ground floor level andand aa pavedpaved forecourtforecourt to provide off-street parking enclosed by an area of landscaping. Each will have private rear amenity space. The development will be finished in materials to match the surrounding houses.
BacknraundBackwound
None,
Cansuftations
a) Adjoining occupiers A total of nine letters of objection were received following public consultation as well as a petition opposingopposing thethe proposalproposal comprisingcomprising 2525 signaturessignatures (I(12 2 addresses). The main substance of the objections were that the two storey proposal wouldwould bebe outout ofof contextcontext withwith thethe surroundingsurrounding bungalows.bungalows. Specific objection was raised by the occupiers of the two adjoining premises (50 Aldborough Road and 35 Manor Road) in respect of thethe opportunityopportunity for overlooking into their premises in addition to a loss of sunlight into garden areas, Objection was also raised regarding the mpact the deveiopment would have on the already congested local parking and the environmental consequences of any building work.work. FurtherFurther concernconcern waswas raisedraised thatthat the houses would block currently open views an increase security risks by providing easier access to the back of properties on Aldborough Road. Some objectors also expressed the viewpoint that this proposal would leadlead to a devaluation in house prices.
b) Director of Housing and Health - Environmental Protection A planning approval should include the standard condition M4 - Construction noise, Cl Director of Housing and Health - Access Officer Level access should be provided.
UDP Policy
Policy HI 3 New Residential Development Policy H14 Environmental Requirements Policy H15 Residential Amenity , Policy H? 6 Internal Design Policy HIH17 7 Car Parking - Appendix 6.1
Policy issue in respect of shortfall in parking provision. - r-T Analysis
The two proposed dwellings satisfy Council policy in respect of the internal habitable floor area contained withi each unit and the amount of private amenity space required for threethree bedroombedroom houses.houses. BothBoth propertiesproperties wouldwould possesspossess 67.167.1 squaresquare metres of internalinternal habitablehabitable floor spacespace (49(49 squaresquare metresmetres required)required) andand 7272 squaresquare metres ofof privateprivate amenityamenity spacespace (60(60 squaresquare metresmetres required).required). LevelLevel access hashas beenbeen provided to both dwellings
Policy HI 3 of the UDP stresses that new residential development should be of quality of design and respect the character of the surrounding area. Currently, this portion ofof ManorW’lanor Road Road comprises comprises a a largelarge concreteconcrete wallwall behindbehind whichwhich protrudesprotrudes thethe tops of the unused garages. The housing to either side of this site comprises a number of bungalows, extending west along Manor Road and onon thethe westernwestern side of Aldborough Road.
The central objection to this proposal has been that this development will interrupt this prevailing pattern of development by introducing a two storey element where bungalows predominate. This is true when looking at this section of the area alone, nos. 25-35 Manor Road are bungalows as are 34 through to 50 Aldborough Road. However, this does not represent the full picture, Opposite this site is a block of 6 two storey terraced dwellings, in addition, the properties on the eastern side of Aldborough Road are two storey, and the eastern end of Manor Road (east of the junction with Aldborough Road and Dagmar Road) is predominated by a mixture of detached, semi detached and terraced, tvvo storey properties. Indeed, towa western endend ofof Manor Road, wherewhere therethere areare aa majority of bungalows,bungalows, therethere are a number of two storey blocks, including a flatted development at no. 23. Moreover, the pattern of development is further complicated by the fact that there are a mixture of typestypes andand designdesign of bungalows and twotwo storeystorey propertiesproperties in thethe vicinity.vicinity.
In lightlight ofof thethe above,above, it isis consideredconsidered that these typotwo storeystorey dwellingsdwellings wouldwould notnot be out of context withwith thethe streetstreet scene.scene. WhilstWhilst itit isis acceptedaccepted thatthat thethe developmentdevelopment wouldwould break up a numbernumber of consecutive bungalows, it would notnot undermineundermine thethe appearance and and character character of ofthe the area area and and will will rather rather complementcomplement the the mixmix of housing types in the area. InIn addition,addition, thethe application application asas proposed doesdoes provideprovide some qualityquality ofof design,design, incorporatingincorporating groundground floor floor bay bay windowswindows andand coursingcoursing aboveabove the windowswindows andand willwill accordaccord withwith the existingexisting building line along ManorManor Road.Road. TheThe . _ applicant hashas alsoalso added an area of landscaping to thethe frontfront ofof thethe dwellingsdwellings toto further enhance the front elevation. The proposal would also have the benefit of removing a blank and uninteresting boundary wall and a set of entrance gates subjected to graffiti, with a development that ad resses the street
In respect of parking provision, the applicants have proposed one off-street parking space per dwelling. Council policy as contained within Appendix 6.1 of the Unitary Development Plan states 3 bedroom dwellings should possess 2 car parking spaces and in that regard there is a shortfall (although Members will be aware that “Interim Parking Standards’ have been approved by tary Development Plan Steering Group which propose a maximum of 1.5 par ace$ for a three-bed house).
However, in this case, given the width of the plot (16 metres), should the residents have two vehicles each they wou d be able to park across the vehicular crossovers to these properties without camp mising anyune else’s ability to park. Moreover, the -’ width of Manor Road does allow for on-street parking that does not impair local traffic flow, Recent Central Government guidance, in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 ‘Housing’, states that local authorities should take a more flexible approach to development plan standards on p rking, where applications for housing are submitted on unused urban land. that respect, the fact that the site lies approximately 630 metres from D enham East tube station and less than 200 metres from the bus routes available on Rainham Road South, allows residents to utilise public transport and not have to rely on the car.
Specific objection was raised by the adjoining occupiers that the development would allow overlooking into neighbouring rear gardens from the rear habitable room windows. Given that the neighbouri properties are bungalows and the fact that there has not been a two storey bui ng in this location before, means that there is some validity in the loss of priv ument. However, this fails to take into account the fact that some of the bun , including 46 and 50 Aldborough Road, have rooms within the roof space, t presenting overlooking opportunities for these residents, It should be noted if planning applications for loft extensions were received for the bungalows in this area, overlooking into rear garden areas would not be considered a reason for a planning refusal, Furthermore, given that there are no habitable room windows in the flank elevations of these units, there will be no direct overlooking into properties on Aldborough Road. Instead, the orientation of these properties will mean that the main view out from the rear will be at an oblique angle to the rear elevations of properties in Aldborough Road.
As to the issue of a loss of light to adjoining properties, this development would not result in a loss of light to any habitab e room. It may cast some shadow onto the rear gardens of 35 Manor Road and 50 Aldborough Road but not enough to significantly ouring residential amenity in that regard. The occupiers of 50 d also state that the development would intrude into the view r property by placing a blank wall, where currently only the roof top of a bungalow is visible, However, given that the proposed development is to be sited some 15 metres away from no.50 and covers only the northern half of their en, these residents will retain sufficient outlook and not suffer from a sense of enclosure. ,
With regard to the other points of objection raised, this development will afford greater security for residents by removing an unused, unsupervised space and replacing it with occupied ( development can be controlled byby standardstandard conditioncondition andand thethe impactimpact onon propertyproperty values is not a planningplanning issue.
Overall, this proposal provides quality housing on an area of unused urban land. As highlighted, this part of the borough is characterised by a mixture of single and two storey dwellings and this development wouldwould notnot undermineundermine thatthat character.character. ThisThis plot has been in itsits currentcurrent state for some time and accordingly the immediate residents have become accustomed to the existing street pattern and undoubtedly the new housing will impact upon that perception. However, the scale of the development will not mean that there will be a direct and Significant loss of residential amenity that merits planning refusal.
Recommendation
‘em.‘--. That planning permission be approved subject to the following conditions:
1 Ql Details of materials
2 PI Details of fencing
3 M4 Hours of Construction
‘44 The proposed windows in the eastern elevation shall be fitted with non- openable or top hung obscure’glazed windows only and thereafter permanently retained as such.
Plan: G Dc/c,1/00626/Ptll Eastbrook Ward (A)
Address: Aventis Pharma Ltd., Rainham Road South, Dagenham
Development: Refurbishment and extension of existing packaging hall
Applicant: Aventis Pharma Ltd. lntraductian and Description of, Development
The application site comprises thethe AventisAventis Pharma pharmaceuticals complex on the east side of Rainham RoadRoad South to the north of the railway lines.
This application relates to the refurbishment and extension of building 33 that is located in the central part of the site approximately-260 metres from the nearest residential curtilage. The proposal primarily involves the erection of a first floor extension to the steriles inspection andand packagingpackaging facilityfacility measuringmeasuring approximatelyapproximately 44.644.6 metresmetres byby 31.631.6 metresmetres and having a floorspace of 1400 m*. The extension would be steel framed and finished in two tone cladding panels incorporating louvres.
Backqround
Planning permission was granted under delegated powers for the erection of a plant ro0mroom to the roof of building 33 in September 2001, A review of the proposal was subsequently commissioned byby AventisAventis andand anan afternativeafternative approach involving the erection ofof thethe extension the subject of this applic ion was agreed.
,Cansultations a) AdjoiningAdjoining csccupiersoccupiers
The application was pubficised by way of a site notice but no representations have been received, b) Director of Social Services - Access Officer
A number of detailed improvements suggested.
UDP Policy
E,l Employment Development Within Employment Areas
No policy issue.
Analysis
This application is submitted to the Board as the development comprises over 1,000 m* of floorspace. > Building 33 is currently part ‘single and part two storey and this proposal would result in a more consistent height to the roof. At its highest part the new roof would be 2.6 metres higher thanthan that existingexisting butbut thisthis is still considerably below the level of the approved plant which would have projectedprojected 5.35.3 metresmetres aboveabove thethe existingexisting roofline.roofline. TheThe scale,scale, massingmassing and design of the development are considered to be appropriate and the extension will have limited visibiEity from areas outside the boundary of the site. It will briefly be seen from the public footpath to the north of the site through a gap in the boundary hedge. Moreover, the building immediately to the east of the application premises is a 6 storey office block and thethe extensionextension wouldwould bebe partlypartly screenedscreened byby the bulkbulk of this building.
The applicant has confirmedconfirmed thatthat thethe commentscomments ofof thethe AccessAccess OfficerOfficer wilfwilf bebe actedacted upon.upon.
In the circumstances it is considered that the proposal would provide an important new facility for oneone ofof thethe mostmost importantimportant employers inin thethe BoroughBorough andand assistassist inin maintainingmaintaining and increasing employment levels in the Borough.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted su4$ect to the following condition:
1. Q. 1 Details/Samples of Facing Materials.
Plan: HF-1 DC/Of/00454/FUL Chadwell Heath Ward (R)
Address: 104 High Road, Chadwell Heath
Development: Use ofof groundground floor~shopfloor shop as recruitmentrecruitment agencyagency (Class(Class AZ)A2)
Applicant: David Kataria
Introduction and DescriptionDescription of Development
The application property comprises a ground floor retail premises with residential above located on the south side of High Road, Chadwell Heath, 5 metres west of St. Chad’s Road. The shop isis locatedlocated inin aa paradeparade of 8 retail pre ses with a rear service yard running behind the units,. The shop is currently in as a recruitment . Backsround Members willwill recaflrecafl thatthat thisthis applicationapplication camecame beforebefore thethe DevelopmentDevelopment ControlControl BoardBoard on 6 November 2001, inin orderorder forfor the applicantapplicant to present further supporting i evidence (A copy of the original report is enclosed - Appendix 1). Consultations . a) Adjoining occupiers No response was received to the public consultation exercise. UDP Palicv s5 Chadwell Heath Policy issue in respect of exceedingexceeding non-retail frontage percentage. Analvsis As members will recall, the conversion of this unit to an employment agency (Class A2) results in 50% of the designated frontage (96-I 10 High Road), being in non-retail use. Policy S5 of the Unitary Development Plan seeks to retain the vitality and viability of thethe Chadwell Heath shopping area by restricting t e level of non-retail activity within prime shopping parades to less than 30% ofof measured frontagesfrontages andand states that therethere shouldshould not be a significant breakbreak inin thethe retailretail frontage. InIn thisthis instance, the change of use has resulted in a run of four consecutive non-retail premises on thethe easterneastern sideside ofof thethe designateddesignated parade,parade, aa significantsignificant break break in in a asmall small parade which possesses eight units. Although not specifically mentioned in Policy S5S5 itit isis consideredconsidered thatthat anan exceptionexception can be allowed ifif itit is evident thatthat thethe unit can no longerlonger bebe operatedoperated successfullysuccessfully asas a Class Al shop. At thethe DevelopmentDevelopment ControlControl BoardBoard meetingmeeting onon 66 NovemberNovember 2001,2001, ’ this application waswas deferreddeferred toto allow the applicant further ti shop could not operate successfully as a retail shop. In this regard, a supporting statement has been provided, a copy of which is enclosed as Appendix 2. The aforementioned statement provides a list of the occupants of this unit since October 1997. Since that time there have been five retail businesses operating from this PI he applicant argues that the nL ltes the difficulty of surviv,, ,y L, ,,v ,““U&,“I 1 IV..V .VI, -3 1 can be seen from the list, two of the occupants have been based at this unit for a very short period of time, one being IO days and another 8 weeks. These do not suggest serious or corn attempts to make a go of a retail shop, irrespective of local competition. Furthermore, in the period covered by the applicant’s list, this unit has been vacant for some six months, and no longer than 3 months at any one time. This would . + appear to indicate that there is a demand for Al premises in this area, if this was not the case it is likely that the vacancy periods would have been longer. Indeed, there are currently no vacancies within this parade, indicating that it remains a vibrant and vital part of the Chadwell Heath shopping area. The applicant also state that the business provides employment to the local community and in doing so participates in the economic regeneration of the area. However, this application is considered in the context of the wit ity of the designated parade and the Chadwell Heath shopping area in general and that regard, the enefits or otherwise of the non-Al use are not central to the planning consideration. ndeed, there should be sufficient opportun for the applicant to locate elsewhere the borough, without compromising the vita of this particular parade and still perform a vital and necessary service. Overall, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant an exception to Council policy which seeks to retain Al uses in order to retain the attractiveness of the shoppi area of Chadwell Heath and to offer a wide range of facilities to local inhabitants he number of occupants of this premises indicates that there may be some difficulties in operating an Al use from this unit. However, given the lack of a substantial period of vacancy and the s term occupancy taken up by two users, it is considered that there is insufficient e rice to prove conclusively that there is a lack of consumer demand for an Al use in this location. A planning application for the conversion of this premises from Al to A3 (food and drink) was refused at the Development Control Board meeting in March 2001 (LBBD: DC/OO/O0540/FUL) on the grounds that the conversion would exceed 30% of the measured frontage and would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the parade. ft is not considered that the applicant has provided sufficient and compelling evidence in this instance to reach a contrary decision, Recommendation That planning permission be refused for the following reason: The proposed change of use would undermine the vitality and viability of the Chadwell Heath shopping area, as it would result in more than 30% of the measured I LONDON BOROUG NG & DAGEtYHAM I llllLI-.* lrrup-a- II*a rsvrVwULmV---am..^-A I .--lVrTI umnmc@ survey moteriol with the permission of Ordnance Sur~ay on behalf of the CQntrfMer af Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (C)Crown Copyright. Unauthorised Mopsheet:-TQ4888SVV reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and ma], lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Date:- lo-Dee-200 1 LB. of Bdrkinq and Daqenham. Licence NodA 086282 (2000). Chadwell Heath Ward (R) Address: 104 High Road, Chadwell Heath Development: Use of ground floor shop as recruitment agency (Class A2) Applicant: David KatariaKattia Introduction and Description of Development The application property comprises a ground floor retailretail premises withwith residentialresidential aboveabove located on the south side of High Road, Chadwell Heath, 15 metres west of St. Chad’s Road. The shopshop isis locatedlocated inin aa parade of 88 retailretail premisespremises withwith aa rearrear serviceservice yardyard running running behind behind the units. The shop is currently in use as a recruitment agency, the occupants of which moved -----.-.’ into the premises within the last year without planning consent. Backgraund A planning application waswas receivedreceived inin SeptemberSeptember 2000 to convert the premises from Al (retail) toto Class A3 (food and drink). Members will recall that this application (LBBD Ref: DC/OO/OO54O/FWL) was refused in March 2001 as the conversion would exceed 30% of the measured frontagefrontage andand bebe detrimentaldetrimental to the vitalityvitality and viability of the parade. This application was received following a subsequent planning enforcement investigation during the process ofof whichwhich thethe CouncilCouncil waswas alerted to the fact that there had been difficulties in securing long term temporary lets for retail use. This latter point was emphasised by the Reverend David Baker of St. Chad’s Church,Church, whowho statedstated thatthat inin hishis fourfour yearsyears of occupancy he had seen a number of small shops come and go within the parade and was relieved to see something opening with an appearance of more permanence and stressing that it was preferable to have a thriving business than a vacant shop. Consultations a> Adjoining occupiers No response was received to the public consultation exercise. UDP Policy s5 Chadwell Heath Policy issue in respect of exceeding non-retail frontage percentage. An&& Policy SS seeks to retain the vitality and viability of tilethe ChadwellChadwell HeathHeath shoppingshopping areaarea byby restricting thethe levellevel of non-retail activity within designated prime shopping parades to less than 30% of the measuredmeasured frontagesfrontages and also stipulates that there shouldshould notnot bebe aa sigGficantsignificant break in the retail frontage. In this instance,instance, thethe changechange ofof use has resulted in a run of four consecutive non-retail premises on the eastern side of the designated,parade,designated parade, a asignificant significant break break in in a a smallsmall paradeparade which possesses eight units.units. Moreover,Moreover, the Ioss ofof thisthis retail unit meansmeans thatthat 50%50% ofof the retail frontage would be taken up by non-retail uses. Policy S5 does not allow for any exemptions to this policy, However, the Council is aware that if units are marketed for a long period for retail use, without any success, that a relaxation in policy could be supported. In this case, the applicant has done little moremore thanthan statestate thatthat thethe premisespremises hashas beenbeen marketedmarketed forfor ‘some‘some time”time” but has not given indication, despite requests, of the type and level of marketing undertaken. Without strong evidence to support the case that policy should be overturned, there is little option but to recommend that this planning application is judged in accordance with Barking and Dagenham planning policy and refused. Recommendation That planning permission be refused for the following reason: The proposed change of use would undermine the vitality and viability of the Chadwell Heath ‘-.”*. shopping area, as it would result in more than 30% of the measured frontage of this parade being in non retail use, contrary to Policy S5 of the Unitary Development Plan. Note Should Members be in agreement with the above recommendation it is requested that Enforcement Action be continued in respect of the unauthorised A2 use. FAO: Mr Paul Roberts The London Borough Of Barking and Dagenham Planning Division 127 Ripple Road Barking, Essex Date: 29 November 2001 IGI 17PB Your Ref: DC/OV00454/FUL Dear l’vlr Robert?, Re: Change,of use from Al to A2,104 High koad Chadwtk Heath Further to your letter dated 7 November 2001, please find below the details proving that the property has been marketed for an Al use. Proprietor Address Start Date Finish Date I* Class Neif Bascombe 59 Salisbury Road 15JlOJ97 20/01/99 *. A+l Romford, Essex RM2 5TP MS S.A Kram 39 Dellows Close 07/04199 2OJO5JOO AA Newbury Park IG2 7E5 Tariq Sagmer .3 Staines Road - 01/06/00 1 I JO6JOO Al I lford Miss K. Linghorn 19 Devonshire Road 06JO9JOO 01/l l/O0 Al .I Newbury Park 162 Mr Ola Asgill 249 Fencepiece Road 01/l l/O0 Current A2 Ketco Ltd Chigweil Essex IG7 50X I As you can see several retail business have attempted to operate but none has been abie to survive for more than a year and it will be difficult for any retail business to survive opposite a major retailer such as Sainsbury’s. Now job opportunities in these areas are gradually decreasing and we as an employment agency provide employment not only for staff within the agency but also locally badly needed agency hospital staff, We have just won a major contract with the NHS to supply nursing staff and our location has become well known to clients and customers through extensive advertising. f We also have training programmes in place for IT and care workers etc resulting in a good response from the community. In view of the above we would like you to reconsider your decision by allowing Ketco Ltd to continue to trade in the above premises 8s we are contributing towards the community by improving job opportunities and economic regeneration, We look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, r -4 L M cl’w m Managing Director K&co Ltd . d G:\GENERAL AD~fN\Ekking and Dagcnham\Planning Division - Mr R&er&.docG:\CENERAL ADMIN\Barkine and ~a~mlhnm\Plnnnirio -... .--. - -- __...- -.. .~ .-..***.*3 UIVISIO~ - Mr Kobens,doc D Plan: I DC/O1 /00644/CTRL Eastbury Ward (A) I Address: Railway land adjacent to 109 Essex Road Barking Development: Construction Arrangements: Installation and operation of 2 temporary de-watering wells in association with the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Applicant: Union Railways I. Introduction and Legislative Framework T.1 The Channel Tunnel Rail Link is designed to provide a high-speed rail service between St. Pancras and Folkestone, Kent. The link runs underground in the western part of the borough, emerging at the Ripple Lane Portal and continuing at ground level east to the boundary with the LB Havering. 1.2 The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 effectively grants outline planning permission for the development of the route whilst setting out a regime of powers and procedures within which Local Planning Authorities may controf the details of the development. Under this regime, set out in section 9 of the Act, the nominated undertaker must submit two types of application in respect of the buildings and structures associated with the ink. The first is an application for Plans and Specifications, relating to the completed works; and the other, an application for Construction Arrangements, relating to the construction methodology of such works. 1.3 Schedule 6 of the Act sets out those matters which are effectively reserved for local authorities to consider and, in relation to each of these matters, the grounds on which they may refuse consent or impose conditions. In the case of an application relating to Plans and Specifications there are two types of conditions: one is that the works could reasonably be carried out elsewhere and the other is one that requires some form of environmental mitigation. For applications relating to construction arrangements, onditions may only be imposed on those grounds tisted within the , clause 4, These grounds predominantly relate to the preservation and environment however, in any event, all conditions must be agreed with the nominated undertaker. 1.4 Schedule 6 provides that the nominated undertaker may appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions against a local authority’s decision to grant conditional consent or for non-determination and, in such event, regulations pursuant to this Schedule provide for an expedited appeals procedure. 2. Backsround Information on De-Waterinq Submissions 2.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the construction arrangements for the installation and operation of 2 de-watering wells on the above site off Essex Road only. A total of around thirteen sites around the Borough are currently being considered by RLE for de-watering purposes and planning submissions for these sites will be lodged in the coming months. Not al! of these sites will be required, however back-up sites are required in the event of problems with site procurement or technical problems with the wells on the preferred sites. 2.2 Dewatering in the Borough is required as the tunnel will be driven at a level below the present ground water table, making the tunnelling operation technically difficult. The installation of temporary dewatering wells will allow the water table to be lowered and the bored tunnel and hand-mined cross-passages between the tunnels to be constructed through dry material. has significant benefits for both safety during construction and in reducing the ment resulting from th construction. It also provides the potential for faster construction a reduction in the length of time of the associated activities at the Rip 2.3 The dewatering operation will involve the sinking of wells at intervals along the S‘“? tunnels, which will be pumped continually for 2-3 years within a 3% year period, until the tunnel boring machine passes through the relevant area. 2,4 Construction Arrangements under Schedule 6 of the CTRL Act will be submitted for the sites situated within the CTRL limits of deviation and applications under the Town and Country Planning Act for any sites which are outside limits, Other consents required for temporary interference to the highway and the well-drilling operation itself will be sought under Schedule 15( 1) and (3) of the CTRL Act. 3. The Essex Road De-Watering Site 3.t The Essex Road temporary dewatering site lies at the north-western end of Essex Road. It is part of a larger triangle of Railtrack land formed by the intersection of the London Tilbury & Southend (LT & S) lines and the London Underground District e. A 24 Seven Utility Services substation (London Electricity) occupies Land acent to the Tilbury Loop Line. 3.2 The work site for the dewatering wells takes place in an area at the southern part of ent to the sub-station and the south-eastern boundary. The site is m the residential property at 109 Essex Road by a footway leading to the footbridge over the Ibury Loop Line. Access will be via the existing cross-over at the end of Essex Ro with access to the sub-station being unaffected. The well heads will be enclosed wiih n a 2m x 2m x 1.5m high blockwork structure with an access opening in the roof nd a,steel door. This structure will also house the electronic monitoring equipment. 3.3 The site will provide wells to dewater part of the tunnel alignment. There are no other temporary dewater ropbsed in the immediate vicinity, with the closest sites being at to the west, and on Eldred Road to the east, it is expected that two icient at ?his site. However, in case of geological problems such as bad underground conditions, or insufficient groundwater yield, more than two boreholes may be drilled to achieve the yield required for CTRL purposes. 3.4 The site is within limits and therefore approval is sought for Construction Arrangements under Schedule 6 of the CTRL Act. Given the works are temporary, no application for ‘plans and specifications’ need be made. 3.5 Description of the works: The Construction Arrangements are based on the lowing method of construction. e P#~;lse I - Site pr’eparation (1-2 weeks) Essential services will be connected and equipment and materials brought on site for the dril ing operation. * Phase 2 - DrIU!flg lup f6 2 week per weN/I The wells will be drilled to a depth of approximate y 80 metres from ground level, and installed with 300mm diameter steel welded casing to the top of the chalk r-r-l. + Phase 3 - Installafian and festhg (up to 2 weeks per weif) Electric submersible pumps will be installed at the bottom of the wells and a continuous pumping test will take place. The pumped water will be disposed of to a Thames Water sewer. Following the completion of a successfu pumping test, the well-head structure will be constructed, the electronic monito ing equipment installed and the site reinstated, m Phase 4 - Pumping (24 years) The wells will be pumped continuously, and monitored electronically, with weekly inspections. 6 Phase 5 - Permanent reinstatement: At the end of the de-watering process, the pumps will be taken out and each well back-grouted. he site will then be restored to its prese t condition or improved in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the lot planning authority as required by Schedule 6 of the CTRL Act 1996 and in ac dance with Undertaking/Assurance No 60. Vehicle Movements 3.6 Only small numbers of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements will be generated by the works : approximately 5 to 7 spread over the duration of the first phase (site preparation), 10 to 12 over the second phase (drilling) and 8 to IO over the third ase (installation and testing), and 2 to 3 over the last phase (reinstatement). It is ite likely that even during the busiest phases (well drilling and installation/testing phases) there will be days where there will be no HGV movements at all. It is anticipated that ail HGV movements will take place during normal working hours, apart from the delivery and removal of the rotary drilling rig and mobile crane which will arrive on site at a time when it will minimize disruption to vehicular flows in the a, Only small quantities of spoil will be generated- a total of 8 to i 0 m3 for each I (including liquid waste). This will be taken off site at three mes during the process : half way through the drilling process; at the end of dri ing process and following the cleaning out and completion of the well. On each of these occasions there will be a maximum of 3 HGV movements involved. 3.7 The following documents illustrating the proposed work have been submitted for approval. + Essex Road Temporary De-Watering site - Construction Arrangements 200-RUG-RLEUC-00196-AB a Site Plan - 2001RUG-RLEUC-00196-AC 3.8 The application was submitted by RLE on 2 November 2001 and registered by Council on the 5 November 2001. Under the provisions of the CTRL Act 1996, a determination should bebe mademade withinwithin eighteight weeksweeks andand thethe deadlinedeadline forfor aa decisiondecision forfor this submissionsubmission wouldwould thereforetherefore havehave beenbeen thethe 2828 DecemberDecember 2001.2001. owever, the first available DevelopmentDevelopment ControlControl BoardBoard meetingmeeting waswas 88 JanuaryJanuary 20012001 thereforetherefore an extension of time for the determination of thethe packagepackage until 11 January 2001 has been agreed. 4. Cansultatfans and Rellrresentatkms 4.1 Copies of the submission were sent directly to the following bodies by RLE with the request thatthat theythey provideprovide commentcomment withinwithin 2121 daysdays ofof receipt:receipt: c-- + Environment AgencyAgency (Na(Na commentscomments received)received) * Metropolitan PolicePolice TrafficTraffic ManagementManagement (No(No o!z$~tions)objections) e Metropolitan Police CrimeCrime PreventionPrevention DesignDesign OfficerOfficer (No(No commen;tscomments received)received) 1) Transport for London (requested details on watertable and raised questions about impact of de-watering on A406 and the A 13) + Association of London Government (sought resttict’ibnresttiction on lorry movementsmovements during evenings and weekends) * Greater London Archaeological Advisbry Service (A/o commenfs received) * Railtraek (No comments received) * Thames Water (A/o(Alo comments received) a Barking All Groups (Rro comments received) * Scrattons Farms Residents Association (No comments received) e 24 Seven (No comments received)) The Council also sent additional external consultations to the Greater London Authority, Essex and Suffolk Water Company, Eastern Electricity and Waterways. (No comments received) 4.2 Internal consultation included the S - Traffic and Road Safety Group (no comments received) * Dept of Housing and Health (Health) (concerns will be addressed through SSI) * LES - Group Engineers (comment that in general engineering terms the information provided and conclusions reached by RLE on the impacts of de- watering on structures are not unreasonable and in the absence of an independent review are accepted), 4.3 Ten residential neighbours were consulted directly and 2 objections were received. These related to numerous issues and have been summarised as follows. 0 General Noise from operations on site, vehicles and workers a Vitxation from drilling 0 Din’ and mud on roads from construction site 0 Traffic safeiy and parking cor?gestion on Essex Road * Glare from site and vehicle Hghts 0 Subsidence/Seiiement of the grour7d l Sanitary arrangements m Mud and silt impact on Sewage system + Loss of Privacy and averlaoking for 109 Essex Road 5. Analvsis 5.1 In terms of assessment, it is critical to note that this submission is not a planning application as such but a request for approval of construction arrangements pursuant to Schedule 6 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. As such, the Council powers are limited to the assessment of the 8 construction matters that have been detailed in the submission. These relate to road transport, handling of re- usable spoil and topsoil, storage sites, screening, hours of working, artificial lighting, suppression of noise, dust and vibration and finally, mud on the highway. 52 In tight of this, it can be seen that-many of the objections raised by consultees, particularly adjoining neighbours are outside the remit of the Council. Other statutory authorities also have a role to play in regulating activities associated with the construction of the Rail Link including Thames Water (for discharge of groundwater to sewer) and the Association for London government (lorry bans) and the Environment Agency. Futhermore, the works involved in the construction of the wells are controlle through the CTRL’s environmental management regime and the Code of Construction Practice. This document provides considerably stronger controls over the manner in which works are undertaken than would be the case for say, other works on the site which clearly have been the source of many residents” concerns. Notwithstanding this, this report will discuss some concerns raised in objections, Noise 5.3 In terms of the working hours and associated noise and disturbance, the main potential for noise and disturbance will arise during the drilling operation, which is normally a week per well. During this phase it is anticipated that work wilt be completed during normal weekday working hours, with extended hours of working being required only if the drilling has reached a critical phase at the end of the working and cannot be safely left. If this does occur, it is anticipated that work would not continue beyond 8pm. The risk of over-runs will be minimised by planning works so that ations will not g the course of the day where there is aknown of an over-run hours which could be avoided by starting the operation at the start of the next working day. 5.4 Mobile screening will be utilised around the rig and the associated pumps to provide visual and noise screening. It should be noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer will assess whether the method of work and measures to control noise are ‘Best Practicable Means’ as part of the process of gaining consent under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. A draft application is currently with Councils Housing and Health Department, which deals with the proposed noise monitoring locations and regime. 5.5 The LEMP provided for information with this submission states that No 109 Essex Road is the only property which is predicted to experience a ‘noise impact’ during the construction activities and a noise monitoring device adjacent to No 109 Essex Road is proposed. It is not considered that further monitoring locations wiil be required; however this is a matter which will be considered in more detail as part of the Section 61 application and assessed by Councils Environmental Health Officers. During pumping operations there will be no audible noise, since the pumps are electric pumps situated at the bottom of the wells at 80m depth. Ovtxfcroking, views, light 5.6 Matters such as potential overlooking by workers on the drilling rig, blockage of light and disruption of views during well construction are beyond the scope of the Council’s consideration. However, since the closest well location faces the flank wall of the adjoining building and that the only window facing the site is a first floor landing (i.e. non-habitable room window) the l-2 weeks drilling are unlikely to have a significant impact. The site lies at a lower level than properties fronting Essex Road, that there w d be a minimum of 12m horizontal distance between the rig .? and the wall of the joining property. once completed, the above-ground chambers will have aheigh f only 1.5m above level, which, considering that the site is at a lower le than adjoining res properties will not be visible over the tops of the existing boundary fences. Car parking and vehicular mavemtents 57 Concerns have been raised regarding double-parking of vehicles and blocking of access for emergency vehicles. chides will park on site and will gain access to the site via the existing cross-over ich is currently used to access the electricity substation on the site. Residents are concerned about the safety of pedestrians (particularly children) walking across the crossover which forms part of a pedestrian route linking the footbridges over the Tilbury Loop Railway line and the SouthendBhoeburyness National Rail/London Underground District lines. This issue was taken up with RLE and the Council has been advised in writing that the contractor has been made aware of this concern and will advise drivers accordingly. It should be noted that the numbers of ve les associated with the works are low (see 3.6 of this report) and due to the sm umber of people working on the site (around 6) the numbers of car movemen be low. The nominated undertaker has also confirmed in writing that there no closure of the railway footbridge or the pathway leading to it in association with the drilling operation. 5.8 The restrictions on lorry bans for the area as advised by the Association for London Government will be complied with as the hours of operation for works will not extend hese hours, except in unforeseen circumstances and for the arrival/removal of rilling rig. These matters have been discussed with the Association and have been accepted. Water Disposal 59 Water disposal will be to Thames Water sewer, under licence. There will be no need to dig up the pavement in front of 109 Essex Road to provide a connection. The connection will be made to the existing manhole located in the public highway in front of the gates to the site. This work will take 1-2 days and will be undertaken by a Thames Water approved sub-contractor under Thames Water’s own powers. The water discharged to sewer will not contain muck/silt since it will be taken from the chalk layer at 1 OOm depth and will be of potable quality, Cancerns abbut potential blockages to the sewer and flooding of adjoining properties are therefore unlikely to arise. Patentizll Settlement impacts 5, IO Settlement issues are a matter dealt with under separate legislative procedures. However the purpose of the dewatering operation is to reduce the potential for differential settlement which will be experienced by properties close to the line of the tunnel alignment as a result of the tunnelling operation. It is the differential settlement, whereby different parts of the structure settle at di went rates and or levels, which causes st problems. The dewatering operation reduces the potential for differential ent and thus the potential for property damage, Having regard to the depth of the wells and their distance from adjoining properties, there is no likelihood that drilling of the wells and the vibration of the submerged I- _: pumps will cause subsidence of tidjoining properties. In regards to the concerns raised by Transport for London and the impact de-watering may have on the $1406 and A13, it must be recognised that’ is not a matter that can be dealt with under this submission and as noted above, will be dealt with under separate procedure. Sanitary facilities 5.11 Sanitary facilities will be provided on site in accordance with normal Health and Safety requirements. onitdring 5.12 Prior to the commencement of works, local residents will be informed of and duration of works and kept advised of any required out-of-h necessary over-runs. The CTRL hotline provides the means for the project and speak to a CTRL representative 24 hours a day, the contact number will be posted on the site and on all flyers distributed to residents. 513 During the construction of the wells, noise-monitoring information will be made available to the Environmental Health officer and the EHO will monitor works on site, in accordance with normal procedure. The site will also be monitored by the contractor’s own Environment Manager and Community Relations Manager and RLE’s Environment team in accordance with CTRL procedures. Following the construction of the well, the well will be moriitored electronically and by regular visits by the Contractors Dewatering Specialist. 6. Conclusion 6.1 The proposed works will not have any significant adverse impacts and issues such as noise and vibration Yyill be assessed and monitored through the Section 61 process. Plan: J DC/O1/0022l/FUL Heath Ward (A) . Address: 48 Grosvenor Road, Dagenham Development: Continuance of use of premises as tihildrens’ counselling and residential care centre Applicant: Mr Akhtar introduction and Descriptian of Devefapment~ MembersMembers willwill recallrecall thatthat the the above above application application waswas submitted submitted forfor considerationconsideration toto thethe meeting held on 4 December 20Ql but that the application was deferred pending an input from the Director of Social Services. The original report is attached as an appendix to this item. +.-:: Cansultatians a) DirectorDirector. ofof SocialSocial ServicesServices -- AsylumAsylum Se&esSe&es ManagerManager I understand the provision will be for unaccompanied asylum seeking children with a focus on the aking community. As a Unit this team commissions a variety of care asylum seeking children according to age and need. It is possible that, if it were to become operational, the premises may be a useful resource for some of our young people, however, it would not be a central part of our service provision. b) The Inspection Consortium Yhe Inspection Consortium are the Registration Authority for Barking & Dagenham, All care homes must apply for registration, to operate without being registered isis an offence, for which this authority can prosecute, Before registration can be granted the premises must satisfy other regulatory authority requirements, i.e planning, building control, environmental health and the fire authority. Registration is a legal process and numerous requirements must be met before registration can be approved, T se includeinclude thethe fitness ofof thethe premises, thethe ownerowner and staff, the policiespolicies andand proc The standards we use indude a close scrutiny of areas such as: *childrens’ rights “child protection “care & control *qual,ity*quality ofof care *equality of opportunity *child care planning *premises *staffing *organisation & management I can confirm that we have not had any application for registration in respect of this property* Analvsis ‘InIn orderorder forfor thethe premisespremises toto bebe usedused asas aa childrens”childrens” homehome itit willwill bebe necessarynecessary toto obtainobtain both planning permission and be registered with the Inspections Consortium. The process of registration is completely separate from the grant of planning permissionpermission andand isis considered against a different set of criteria. It is understood that the premises cannot be registered until planning permission is granted but that the granting of permission does not pre-empt any decision by the Consortium. In the circumstances MembersMembers areare advised that the application should be considered against planning criteria and that the suitability of the internal layout and applicant, whilst of paramount importance, must bebe leftleft toto thethe appropriate registration authority. Recommendation That planning permissionpermission bebe granted. -- Heath Ward (A) Address: 48 Grosvenor Road, Dagenham Development: Continuance of use of premises as children& counselling and residential care centre Applicant: Mr Aktar The application property comprises a two storey end of terrace property located at the junction of Grosvenor Road and Gray Avenue. The property has a two storey side extension folfowingfoffowing the grant of planning permission in 1974, TheThe sideside boundaryboundary wallwall to the property incorporates two large double gates that permit vehicular access to the rear @r-den. This application relates to thethe use of the premises as a childrens’ counselling and residential care centre, The premises comprises a group meeting room/activity room, kitchen, office and w.c on the ground floor with 4 bedrooms for the children, a bedroom for staff to sleep over and a bathroombathroom onon the first floor. Backqraund Town planning permission for the conversion of this property to provide warden supervised residential accommodation and the erection of a two storey rear extension to provide kitchen and laundry rooms on the ground floor with additional bedroom accommodation above was refused in June 1984 (TP/27/84) for the following reason: “‘The proposed use of the premises would be likely to cause loss ofof amenityamenity toto occupiersoccupiers ofof neighbouring residential properties,” A subsequent app ication to use the premises as a counselling centre for the Childrens liome was granted permission in October 1984 (TP/464/84). However, this application was granted solelysolely forfor thethe benefitbenefit ofof thethe NationalNational ChildrensChildrens HomeHome andand forfor nono other purpose. In 1990 planning permission was granted to convert the childrens’ home back to a dwellinghouse, The use currently applied for was brought to the planning authority’s attention as a result of a complaint in February 2001 I It is understood that the use ceased in June pending the determination of this application. Cbnsultatians a) Adjoining occupiers The occupiers of 21 neighbouring properties were consulted and 2 letters of objection were received, The occupiers of 59 Grosvenor Road stated that they had experienced noise from “clapped out” cars being used and rewed up early in the morning. It was also stated that other residents had experienced disruption from those residing at the premises due to their lack of consideration. In addition a number of robberies have taken pface locally since the house was occupied and there is concern that the use devalues proper”ty prices. The occupier of 46 Grosvenor Road, the immediately adjoining house, has concerns that the children may influence/disturb his own 3 children. Concern was also expressed as to the safety of his family as different residents keep coming and going. b) Director of Social Services - Access Officer No comments. cj- Director of Housing and Health - Envi”ronmental Protection- No adverse comments, UDP Police H.7 Special Needs Housing Partial policy issue - property not detached. Analysis The property would be operated as a counselling and residential care centre for Albanian children aged from 12 to 16 years. The children will have been brought to this country to be placed in stable homes with foster parents as “‘disappeared” during the periods of unrest in thei temporary respite accommodation until an assessment 91 mew neeus nas cleen ciarrreu out. Although the children will attend local schools it will be necessary to provide counselling to equip them with the adaptation skills and confidence to enable them to be integrated into a local family. The sessions will include counselling to help them overcome the loss of their parents/family. A maximum of 4 children could be accommodated at any I work shifts to provide 24 hour cover an it is estimated that there will typically be 3 staff present at the premises at any given time. The site is located in close proximity to Whalebone Lane South and accessible to a number of bus routes and the use is considered to be acceptable in principle in this residential area subject it not causing any significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The main difference between this us& and that granted permission in 1984 is that the children would now also live on the premises. Policy l-J6 states that care homes should normally operate from detache premises and in this instance the appfication property is an end of terrace house. However, the layout of the property is such that the room most likely to be generate noise (the group meeting room/activity room) is located in the two storey extension away from the common boundary with the nejghbouring house. The use may involve more comings and goings than would be typical of a single dwelling but should not necessarily be noisy, particularly as staff will always be present at the premises. Accordingly, in view of the paucity of detached properties in the locality, it is considered that the property is suitabfesuitable forfor thethe useuse 77 in thisthis instance.instance.‘The The applicantapplicant statesstates thatthat thethe rearrear gardengarden areaarea cancan accommodateaccommodate upup toto 33 cars which is considered adequate for the proposed use. The comments made regarding disruption caused by the children are not accepted by the applicantapplicant andand thethe linkinglinking ofof thethe useuse withwith robberiesrobberies in the locality isis expresslyexpressly rebutted.rebutted. ItIt isis pointed out that there is no evidence linkino the children at this home with any criminal activities. The issue regardir louse values is not a planning matter although Members are advi! despite currently being vacant, is well- maintained and continues to nave tne appearance of a single family dweliinghouse. In conclusion it is considered that the premises wlould provide a decent temporary home to cater forfor.an an identified need in the area and that it is appropriate to provide such uses within a residential area to encourageencourage thethe integrationintegration ofof thethe AlbanianAlbanian childrenchildren withwith locallocal children.children. The concerns ofof neighbours,neighbours, whilstwhilst real,real,.cannot -cannot be substantiatedsubstantiated andand areare notnot consideredconsidered Econstituteto constitute sufficientsufficient groundsgrounds toto warrant refusal of permission.permission. Reeommendatiion That planning permission be granted. Plan: K DC/O1/00670/ADV Cambell WardWard (R)CR) Address: 527 Gale Street, Dagenham Development: Installation of internally illuminated projecting sign Applicant: The Co-operativeCo-operative RankRank PLCPLC lntradwctianlrWadu&ion and Description of Development The application premisespremises comprisecomprise a ground floor shop on the easbideeast side of Gale Street just north of the junction with Hedgemans Roa . The property is occupied by the applicants as a Co-op supermarket and rear access is available. An existing projecting sign is located at the northern end of the frontage at fascia level and below e-e_--*’ thethe canopy.canopy. ItIt measuresmeasures 54Omm squaresquare bearing white lettering and logo on a blue background. There is.is alsoalso aa smallsmall projectingprojecting signsign onon thethe southernsouthern endend ofof thethe shopshop advertising the National Lottery. This application retates toto thethe installationinstallation ofof anan internallyinternally ilhminatedilluminated projecting box sign to be placed atat fasciafascia levellevel onon thethe southernsouthern end of the shop frontage at fascia level. The oval shaped sign measures 6OQmm in height has a length of 8OOmm and is set on a bracket 120mm off the frontage. The sign possesses a white border, and a mixture of white, blue and red lettering, advertising the presence of a Co-operative Bank cash machine. The existing lottery sign would need to be relocated to the ,’ northern end of the shop blow the existing projecting sign _Backqraund Advertisement consent was granted in December 2000 for the installation of the existing internally illuminatedilluminated fasciafascia andand projectingprojecting boxbox signssigns (Ref(Ref 001007381ADV).001007381ADV). Cansultatians None. WDP Policv DE14 Projecting signs Policy conflict in respect of the presence of more than one projecting sign at this premises. Analysis he proposed advetiisement has been located at ground floorfloor fasciafascia levellevel onon aa wattwatt containing aa displaydisplay window in accordance with Guidanceguidance contained within Policy DE14. Moreover, the static method of illumination is considered to be acceptable. However, Policy DE14 also states that: “Only one hanging or projecting box sign will be ahwd per business.” In this instance, this retail unit already possesses the projecting sign as approved in December 2000 plus the lottery sign which was installed with deemed consent. It is considered that the addition of the sign proposed would notnot contributecontribute positivelypositively toto the individual shopshop unitunit nornor thethe shoppingshopping parade parade as as a a wholewhole and and would would instead instead create unnecessary clutter and detract from the visual amenity of the area. Recommendation That planning permission be refused for the following reason: The addition of a second illuminated projectingprojecting signsign toto thethe frontagefrontage ofof thisthis retailretail unitunit would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and contribute to a clutter of illuminate advertisements in the area and is contrary to Pol cy DE14 of the s-1 ‘.aI Unitary Development Plan. .. Plans 1. M. N*N, DC/Q?/OO598/ADV; DC/Ol/OO599/ADV Marks Gate WardWard (A/R) and DC/O1/00600/ADV Address: Marks Gate Garage, Whalebone Lane North, Romford Development: Erection of various low level directional and information signs, including four internally illuminated menu signs and four flag poles (DC/Ol/OO598/ADV); Erection of internally illuminated wall and roof mounted signs (DC/O 1/00599/ADV); Erection of internally illuminated road sign comprising ‘Golden Arch’ logo and box sign on a 5 metre pole (DC/01/00600/ADV). __ -. Applicant: McDonaEds Restaurants Limited lntraduction and Description of Development The application premisespremises comprisecomprise thethe sitesite ofof thethe formerformer MurcoMurco PetrolPetrol FillingFilling StationStation on the eastern side of Whalebone Lane North and is designated as Green Belt land within the Unitary Development Plan, The three advertisementadvertisement applicationsapplications proposepropose thethe erectionerection ofof aa varietyvariety ofof advertsadverts onon the approved McDo restaurant on this site. The roposals include the erection of internallyinternally i Iillumina lumina enu, information signs and rectional signs and for the erection of four six metre high flag poles. Consent is alsoalso sought for the erection ofof one internally illuminated roof sign on the northern elevation of the building, two internally illuminated roof mounted ‘Golden‘Golden Arch’ logos on the south and west elevations and a wall mounted internally illuminated ‘Golden Arch’ logo on the western elevation. The applicants also propose the erection of a d internally illuminated ‘Golden Arch’ sign mounted on a five metre hi to Whalebone Lane North. Baekslround Planning consent was grante r the erection of a freefree standing Class A3 restaurant with associated landscaping a car parking in October 2001 (DC/00/00566/FUL). Cansu ltatians one. UDP Policy DE1 3 Fascia Signs Policy issue in respect of cumulative impact of advertisements on the Green Belt, Analvsis This application provides a signage scheme for the McDonald’s restaurant which was approved at the DevelopmentDevelopment ControlControl BoardBoard inin OctoberOctober 2001.2001. AsAs stated,stated, thethe sitesite is designated as Green Belt land in the UDP wherein there is a presumption against inappropriate development, in order that the open character of the Green Belt is maintained, In this instance, the applicants have a proposed a comprehensive scheme of illuminated advertisements on and adjacent to the approved building in an attempt to ensure that the restaurant is clearly visible within the surrounding area, as well as a number of information and menu signs to facilitate the efficient use of this facility. For purposes of clarity each of the three applications is dealt with in turn. DC/O1 /00598/ADV The information and menu signs, which are designed to assist people around the site - and to provide information on the goods on offer are located to the south of the approved restaurant building adjacent to the drive thru lane. A total of six sign boards are proposed measuring between 1.86 metres and 2.0 metres in height with a maximum width of 0.67m and are all set-back behind the frontage of the proposed restaurant. The signs are single sided and are orientated so that the illuminated sides face away from Whalebone Lane North. In this context it is considered that the boards should not have any significant impact upon the open character of the Green Belt. They are located in the narrow strip of land between the restaurant and the southern boundary. Given their size, location and orientation, the boards will not be readily visible from the adjoining highway or the surrounding area and are located in a position where they woufd be subservient to the adjacent building, A 1.54 metre high internally illuminated entrance sign has been proposed for the Whalebone Cane North frontage, This is viewed as a necessary feature to provide cient guidance and warning for motorists visiting the site, ensuring that public way safety is maintained. In addition the scale of the advertisement when viewed against the backdrop of the restaurant should not undermine the character or openness of the Green Belt. DC/O1 /00599/ADV This application seeks approval for the erection of four fascia signs on the approved building. Three are proposed (one McDonafds fascia, two ‘golden arch’ logos) to be roof-mounted on the northern, western and southern elevations and one wall mounted “Golden Arch’ logo is proposed to be affixed to the western (frontage considered that the number of signs on the building represents an n of signage and would contribute to the unnecessary clutter of illuminated advertisements on a Green Belt site. In that regard, one fascia sign on each of the proposed elevations would be sufficient to advertise the restaurant to people approaching the site in all directions and any more are not required to attract attention. Given that the retention of the roof-mounted signs would provide some uniformity in design it is considered that the wall mounted illuminated ‘golden arch” logo should be refused. In addition to the mounted signs, the applicants have also proposed the erection of four six metre flag poles. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) states that there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development and that the applicants should show very special circumstances if such development is to gain approval. In this instance, there do not appear to be any ‘special circumstances’ which require the siting of these flag poles. Indeed, their presence would only add to the clutter of advertisements on.the site make no contribution to the Green Belt status or local visual amenity. DC/O1 /006OO/ADV ‘ The applicants have also proposed an illuminated box sign on a 5 metre high pole on the Whalebone Lane North frontage” The applicants have suggested that the sign ow motorists advance warning of the presence of the restaurant and provide an instantly recognisab te bof which would not u rmine the visual character of the area. The applicants emphasise that the ill nated pole sign will contribute to public safety, particularly during dusk and night, by allowing sufficient time for people to make a decision to visit the.-store whilst driving in the vicinity. However, it is not considered that these points represent “special circumstances’, nt enough to warrant an approval. The store is in an open location, with an ad field of vision on Whalebone Lane North and the presence of the building itself, alongside the fascia boards and the entrance sign should be sufficient enough to grab the attention of motorists who are unaware of the restaurant’s existence, without the requirement for any large pole signs. The sign would compromise the visual amenity of the Green Belt, as an internally illuminated McDonald’s go on a 5 metre high pole is not a feature in keeping with the open character of e immediate Green Belt surroundings. Furthermore, the advertisement would contribute to the impression of clutter and impair the views into the open space behind the restaurant. It is worth dra\rving to the attention of Members that durihg the consideration of the original application, the applicants made reference to the approved McDonalds on a Green Belt site in Bushey, Her&mere, a site set against a tree lined background and set back from the ad ning highway. It is considered that this location is more conspicuous and the presence of a large pole sign, in conjunction with the building and the other advertisements, would have a significant and unacceptable effect on the character of the Green Belt. RWXWtmel*ldati0n DC/O=li’/OO598/ADV That advertisement consent be granted for the erection of various directional and information signs, including the erection of six internally illuminated signs. That advertisement consent be refused for the erection of 4 six metre high flag poles for the following reason: The flag poles, by reason of their size and prominent siting would fail to protect and enhance the open character of the Green Belt and represent inappropriate development detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. DC/O1/00599/ADV That advertisement consent be granted for the erection of three internally illuminated ’ roof signs. That advertisement consent be refusedrefused forfor thethe erectionerection ofof anan internallyinternally itluminatedilluminated wall mounted sign for the following reason: The addition of a second illuminated sign to the western frontagefrontage of the restaurant wouJd fail to protect and enhance the character ofof thethe Green Belt and contribute to a cJutter of illuminated advertisements on the building, representing inappropriate development detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and contrary to DE14 of the Unitary Development Plan. lXY01/00600/ADv That advertisement consent be refusedrefused forfor thethe erectionerection ofof anan internallyinternally illuminatedilluminated road sign comprising ‘Golden Arch’Arch’ logologo andand box sign mounted onon aa 5 metre pole for ,-z-tL-_ the following reason: ,- The pole sign by reason of its size and prominent siting would fail to protect and enhance the open character of the Green Belt and represent inappropriate development detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.