The Planning Committee of Redbridge Council met on Thursday 29 November 2018, refusing one planning application and granting another. The committee also received a report on the performance of the Development Management service.

Refusal of Development at 142-146 High Road, South Woodford

The committee refused planning permission for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of a 6-storey block containing 28 flats at 142-146 High Road, South Woodford. The reasons for refusal were:

• Inadequate Affordable Housing: The proposal failed to address the significant unmet need for affordable housing in the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2016, contravening national and local planning policies aimed at achieving sustainable development.
• Insufficient On-Site Parking: The planned parking provision was deemed inadequate, which would likely worsen existing parking pressures in the surrounding streets, negatively impacting road safety, pedestrian access, and the amenity of nearby residents. This was contrary to policies in the London Plan and the adopted Local Plan 2018.
• Overdevelopment and Out of Character: The proposed development was considered to be at an excessive density, leading to an overdevelopment of the site that was out of character with the prevailing development pattern in the area. This was in conflict with Policy 3.4 of the London Plan and Policy LP2 of the adopted Local Plan 2018.

Objectors Mr Worthley Millek and Mrs Beverley Marcovitch spoke against the application, as did Councillor Stephen Adams. The applicant's agent, Mr James Smith, spoke in support.

Approval of Variation for 55 Atherton Road, Clayhall

Planning permission was granted for a variation of Condition 3 of an approved planning permission at 55 Atherton Road, Clayhall, Ilford IG5 0PG. The variation allows the premises to be used as a place of worship in addition to its existing approved uses.

The permission was granted subject to several conditions, including:

• A time limit for the commencement of development.
• The development to be carried out strictly in accordance with approved plans and documentation.
• The premises to be used only for non-residential education, a community centre, and a place of worship, with no other purpose. This was to ensure the use aligned with the application and to prevent nuisance to neighbours, in line with Policies LP24 and LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan.
• Specific opening hours: 9:00 am to 7:30 pm on Monday to Friday, and 10:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. This was to prevent undue disturbance to neighbours.
• A limit of 25 employees/visitors on the site at any one time, also to prevent disturbance.
• Sound insulation measures to be implemented on the ground floor before the use commences to limit noise and vibration transmission to adjoining residential units.
• No amplifying sound equipment to be used at the site at any time, to prevent unreasonable noise and disturbance.

Councillor Jyotsna Rahman Islam, Chair of the committee, declared a personal prejudicial interest as her husband, a local ward councillor, had made written representations in support of the application. She left the chamber for the discussion and decision, with Vice-Chair Councillor Paul J. Merry chairing the item. Councillor Ruth K. Clark also declared a personal prejudicial interest due to her neighbour's support for the application and left the chamber. The applicant's agent, Mr Akmal Muhammad, spoke in support, as did Councillor S. Kothia. Councillor Islam returned to chair the meeting after the decision was made.

Development Management Performance Report

The committee received a report detailing the performance of the Development Management service over a two-year period up to June 2018. The report compared the borough's performance against national targets set by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the council's own Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

Key points from the report included:

• The service had exceeded national targets for determining major, minor, and other planning applications within the set timeframes since 2017.
• The council's performance in terms of the 'quality' of decisions, measured by appeals, was strong, with only 5% of major refusals and 2.9% of non-major refusals being overturned at appeal, well below the 10% target.
• In the last quarter (March-June 2018), the council's ranking for determining applications nationally improved from 303rd to 258th. The council's target of an 85% approval rate had been consistently exceeded since April 2018.
• One target that had not been met was the council's own appeals target of 70% of appeals being dismissed. While performance had improved slightly in 2018, it remained below this target.
• The council exceeded its own targets for three forms of development: householder prior approvals, dropped kerbs, and advertisements. The figures for advertisements were noted as being significantly influenced by a large number of applications for telephone boxes with integral advertisements.
• The Enforcement team had been successful in securing funding from the Controlling Migration Fund 2018, enabling the employment of additional enforcement officers to investigate unlawful uses of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a significant issue in the borough.
• An ongoing review of appeals was being conducted, with findings to be reported to the Planning Committee. The report expressed expectation of continued improvement in the Planning and Enforcement Service's performance due to proposed IT enhancements, a new local validation checklist, changes to the pre-application advice service, and the establishment of an Agent's Forum.

The committee resolved to note the contents of the Development Management Performance Report.