Plan: a ~C/Ol/00499/FUL Marks Gate Ward ('R ) Address: Sungate
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.