Agenda and minutes
PDF 116 KBVenue: Roding Valley High School, Brook Road, Loughton, Essex IG10 3JA
Contact: Jackie Leither (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 3 June 2015 as a correct record. (attached) Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 3 June 2015 be agreed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest (Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda. Additional documents: Minutes: (a) Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Conduct, Councillor J Hart declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda. The Councillor advised that he lived in Stradbroke Grove but that he was not close enough to be consulted by the Council and that he would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon.
· EPF/0455/15 – 54 Stradbroke Grove, Buckhurst Hill
(b) Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Conduct, Councillor H Kauffman declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda. The Councillor advised that he was known to the applicants and that he would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application but would not vote.
· EPF/1051/15 – 78 Princes Road, Buckhurst Hill |
|
|
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: It was noted that there was no urgent business for consideration by the Sub-Committee. |
|
|
(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 – 9 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes. |
|
|
Probity in Planning - Appeal Decisions, 1 October 2014 to 31 March 2015 (Director of Governance) To consider the attached report. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions for the period 1 October 2014 to 31 March 2015.
In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report ont the agenda, Item 8, advises the decision-making committees of the results of all successful allowed appeals (i.e. particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation). The purpose was to inform the committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and, in cases where the refusal is found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs may be made against the Council.
Since 2011/12, there have been two local indicators, one of which measures all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (GOV08) and the other which measures the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (GOV07).
Over the six-month period between 1 October 2014 and 31 March 2015, the Council received 40 decisions on appeals (38 of which were planning related appeals, the other 2 were enforcement related).
GOV07 and 08 measure planning application decisions and out of a total of 38, 14 were allowed (36.8%). Broken down further, GOV07 performance was 6 out of 29 allowed (20.68%) including one part-allowed/part-dismissed and GOV08 performance was 8 out of 9 (88.88%), although out of this 8, one was part-allowed/ part-dismissed.
Whilst performance in defending appeals at 36.8% appears high, there was no national comparison of authority performance. Members were reminded that in refusing planning permission there needs to be justified reasons that in each case must be not only relevant and necessary, but also sound and defendable so as to avoid paying costs. This was more important now then ever given a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State can award costs, even if neither side has made an application for them. Whilst there is clearly pressure on Members to refuse in cases where there are objections from local residents, these views (and only when they are related to the planning issues of the case) are one of a number of relevant issues to balance out in order to understand the merits of the particular development being applied for.
RESOLVED:
That the report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 October 2014 to 31 March 2015 be noted. |