Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and outlined the procedures and arrangements adopted by the Council to enable persons to address the Sub-Committee, in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission. The Sub-Committee noted the advice provided for the public and speakers in attendance at Council Planning Sub-Committee meetings.

The Chairman had tendered her apologies for the meeting, so the Vice Chairman assumed Chairmanship of the Sub-Committee, the Chairman then sought a nomination for Vice Chairman of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor R Morgan be elected Vice Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee, held on 9 April 2014 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 April 2014 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

That the Sub-Committee reviewed their decision on the application EPF/2660/13 in the light of additional factual information, representations by the applicant and legal advice.

On 12 February 2014 this Sub-Committee refused to remove an extant section 52 legal agreement attached to planning permission ref EPF/1127/82. The proposal was put forward under application EPF/2660/13.

Planning permission EPF/1127/82 permitted the use of a building within the Theydon Park Road Chalet Estate as a dwelling house. No conditions limiting the use were included on the permission but its occupation was restricted to named individuals by an s52 Agreement. Those persons have since passed away and as a consequence, the agreement in effect prohibits the use of the dwelling house for its lawful purpose.

Consequently, the applicants’ only recourse was to seek a judicial review of the decision or to apply to the Upper Tier Land Chamber under s84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for the agreement to be removed. Both courses of action would involve significant legal costs and the applicant would therefore almost certainly seek to recover them from the Council if he were successful. The Council would be liable for its own legal costs in defending its position against such an application.

The Council would be at risk of an award of costs if it was found to have been unreasonable in refusing to remove the agreement and therefore causing the applicant to apply for judicial review or to the Lands Tribunal.

The applicant had put the Council on notice that he intended to make an application to the Upper Tier Land Chamber but had agreed to delay the application until after this meeting of the Sub-Committee.

If the Council refused to lift the s52 Agreement it would be required at any hearing to set out what planning purpose it seeks to achieve by preventing the occupation of the house by seeking to retain in leisure use.

Following the earlier refusal officers have now researched the planning status of the other properties within the estate and it could be seen that the majority of the properties have had either planning permission for unrestricted residential use or have established a lawful residential use. No other property was found to have a similar s52 agreement restricting occupation in any way.

Furthermore, many of the permanent dwellings on Theydon Park Road have been established through express planning consent by the Council throughout the last fifty years. As such the position of the Council on this road had been favourable to unrestricted residential use. 

Further Legal advice had been sought and the Council had been advised that if an application was made to the Upper Tribunal there would be a very good prospect of the s52 agreement being discharged on the basis that it was now obsolete.

            RESOLVED:

            Members noted that in light of the new information presented in the report, it was agreed to remove the legal agreement so as to allow the dwelling to be used permanently by persons other than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

(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.

RESOLVED:

That the planning applications numbered 1 – 4 be determined as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions for the period 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014.

In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, this report 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 had been two local indicators, one of which measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (KPI 55) and the other which measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (KPI 54).  

Over the six-month period between 1 October 2013 and 31 March 2014, the Council received 48 decisions on appeals (46 of which were planning related appeals, the other 2 were enforcement related).

KPI 54 and 55 measure planning application decisions and out of a total of 46, 18 were allowed (37%). Broken down further, KPI 54 performance was 4 out of 23 allowed (17%) and KPI 55 performance was 13 out of 22 (59%). One other case was allowed, but it was recommended for approval by officers and supported by Area Plans Committee East but unusually an appeal was lodged against non-determination, despite District Development Control Committee supporting an approval (Application EPF/2404/12).

Whilst performance in defending appeals had improved during the last couple of years, Members are reminded that in refusing planning permission there needed to be justified reasons that in each case must be relevant, necessary, but also sound and defendable so as to avoid paying costs. This is 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 were objections from local residents, these views (and only when they are related to the planning issues of the case) were one of a number of the 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 2013 to 31 March 2014 be noted.