Agenda and minutes
PDF 270 KBVenue: Roding Valley High School, Brook Road, Loughton, Essex IG10 3JA
Contact: Mark Jenkins (Directorate of Governance) Tel: 01992 564243 Email: democraticservices@eppingforestdc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Webcasting Introduction 1. This meeting is to be webcast;
2. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking; and
3. the Chairman will read the following announcement:
“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet (or filmed) and will be capable of repeated viewing (or another use by such third parties).
If you are seated in the public seating area it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast.
This may infringe your human and data protection rights and if you wish to avoid this you should speak the webcasting officer.” Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman made a short address to remind all present that the meeting would be broadcast on the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings. |
|
|
To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 26 November 2014 as a correct record. (attached) Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 26 November 2014 be agreed. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest (Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting. |
|
|
Any Other Business Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution requires that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.
In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee. Two weeks' notice of non-urgent items is required. Additional documents: Minutes: There was no other business for consideration. |
|
|
Development Control (Director of Governance) To consider planning applications as set out in the attached schedule
Background Papers: (i) Applications for determination – applications listed on the schedule, letters of representation received regarding the applications which are summarised on the schedule. (ii) Enforcement of Planning Control – the reports of officers inspecting the properties listed on the schedule in respect of which consideration is to be given to the enforcement of planning control. Additional documents: Minutes: The Sub-Committee considered a schedule of applications for planning permission.
RESOLVED:
That the planning applications numbered 1 – 4 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes. |
|
|
Probity in Planning (Director of Governance) To consider the attached report. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Sub-Committee received a report regarding “Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 April to 30 September 2014.
In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, this report advised the decision making committees of the results of all successful allowed appeals. The reason being to inform the committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and, in cases where the refusal was found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs may have been made against the Council.
Since 2011/12, there had been two local indicators, one measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (KPI55) and the other which measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (KPI54).
Over the six month period between 1 April and 30 September 2014, the Council received 36 decisions on appeals (29 of which were planning related appeals, the other 7 were enforcement related).
KPI54 and 55 measured planning application decisions and out of a total of 29, 10 were allowed (34.5%), broken down further KPI54 performance was 4 out of 18 allowed (22.2%) and KPI55 performance was 6 out of 11 (54.6%).
Out of the planning appeals that arose from decisions of the committees to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6 month period, the Council was not successful in sustaining the committee’s objection in the following cases from this sub-committee:
(1) EPF/0942/14 69 Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill, retention of ground floor rear extension; and
(2) EPF/2595/13 Chigwell Food and Wine, 10 Brook Parade, High Road, Chigwell, change of use from Class A1 to Class A5 takeaway use together with installation of extract duct on roof of cold room at the rear.
Therefore, the committees were urged to continue to heed the advice that if they were considering setting aside the officer’s recommendation it should only be in cases where Members were certain that they were acting in the wider public interest and where there was a good indication of success at defending the decision.
However, the Sub-Committee had been successful in the following 3 cases where an appeal had been dismissed following a committee reversal of officer recommendation:
(a) EPF/0219/14 49 Southern Drive, Loughton, single storey side and rear extension with part second storey to side and rear;
(b) EPF/2664/13 48 Church Lane, Loughton, re-development of site to create four detached dwellings, formation of vehicular access and car parking; and
(c) EPF/0941/13 Land adjacent 20 Ollards Grove, Loughton, new semi-detached house and alterations to existing dwelling.
Of 7 enforcement notice appeals decided, 2 were allowed and 5 were dismissed. One of these appeals was within the Plans South area and was dismissed.
It was advised that there had been an award for costs against the Council during this period. Members were also advised that recent appeal changes allowed planning inspectors to award costs against a party that had behaved unreasnobly even if neither the Council or the appellant had applied for costs. ... view the full minutes text for item 60. |