Agenda and 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. The Sub-Committee noted the Council’s Protocol for Webcasting of Council and Other Meetings.

The Vice-Chairman, Councillor P Keska, chaired the meeting in the absence of the elected Chairman, Councillor S Jones. The Members present then agreed that Councillor A Grigg would act as Vice-Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 10 May 2017.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 May 2017 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.

(1)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor P Keska made a declaration of interest by virtue of his position as a member of Ongar Town Council for those applications below in that area on the agenda. The Councillor had determined that he had no other or financial connection with any applicant or the sites, and would remain in the meeting and vote accordingly.

·        EPF/0072/17 – 47 High Street, Ongar CM5 9DT

·         EPF/0948/17 – 42 Castle Street, Ongar CM5 9JS

(2)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Stallan declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following agenda item by virtue of the objector and applicant being customers of his business. The Councillor had determined that his interest was non-pecuniary and he would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·           EPF/0082/17 – 5 Bluemans, North Weald Bassett CM16 6EU

(3)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Stallan declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following agenda item as he had ‘called in’ the application on behalf of the applicant, who was also one of the customers of his business. The Councillor had determined that his interest was non-pecuniary and he would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·           EPF/0590/17 – 182 High Road, North Weald Bassett CM16 6BZ

(4)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor C Whitbread declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following agenda item by virtue of the applicant being known to him. The Councillor had determined that his interest was non-pecuniary but he would leave the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·           EPF/0082/17 – 5 Bluemans, North Weald Bassett CM16 6EU

(5)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor C Whitbread declared a pecuniary interest in the following agenda items by virtue of being the landlord of the applicant. The Councillor had determined that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

·           EPF/1135/17 – Poppy’s Café, 309-311 High Street, Epping CM16 4DA

·           EPF/0683/17 – Poppy’s Café, 309-311 High Street, Epping CM16 4DA

(6)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor H Whitbread declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following agenda item by virtue of the applicant being known to her. The Councillor had determined that her interest was non-pecuniary but she would leave the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·           EPF/0082/17 – 5 Bluemans, North Weald Bassett CM16 6EU

(7)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor H Whitbread declared a pecuniary interest in the following agenda items by virtue of her father being the landlord of the applicant. The Councillor had determined that she would leave the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

·           EPF/1135/17 – Poppy’s Café, 309-311 High Street, Epping CM16 4DA

·           EPF/0683/17 – Poppy’s Café, 309-311 High Street, Epping CM16 4DA

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, 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.

(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 – 11 be determined as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

(Director of Governance)  To consider the attached report and appendices.

The Sub-Committee received a report on “Probity in Planning, Appeal Decisions, 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017”.

The report advised the decision-making committees of the results of all successful allowed appeals, 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 was found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs made against the Council.

Since 2011/12, there were two local Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). One measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (GOV08) and the other measured the performance of officer recommendations, which were in the main delegated decisions (GOV07).

Over the six-month period between 1 October 2016 and 31 March 2017, the Council received 54 decisions on appeals (51 of which were planning related appeals, the other 3 were enforcement related).

GOV07 and 08 measured planning application decisions taken at appeal and out of a combined total of 51, 16 were allowed (31%). Broken down further, GOV07 officer performance was 8 out of 40 allowed (20%) and GOV08 committee reversal performance was 8 out of 11 (73%) for the 6 month period. The appeal performance for GOV08, committee reversals, was noticeably outside of its KPI target of 50% target, at 73%.

On the planning appeals that arose during the 6-month period from the decisions of the Area Planning Sub-Committee East to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers, four appeals were allowed and one was dismissed.

Councillor J M Whitehouse commented on the following Appeal Decisions:

(1)  Field adjacent to Horse Shoe Farm, London Road, Harlow (Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/W/16/3158090 (EPF/2716/15)) – regarding the agricultural building issue, where the issue seemed to be whether the use was agricultural or not, and that was where the debate stopped; and

(2)  Bridge House, Roding Road, Loughton (EPF/1997/15) – regarding building in flood risk areas. This was previously a ‘show stopper’ but the outcome of the appeal seemed to suggest that this was no longer the case, if the Council could not demonstrate obvious places for development elsewhere.

The Principal Planning Officer replied on the latter that in future the Council would have to argue an appeal like this differently and show that there were other smaller sites that would support smaller sized developments elsewhere in the District.

Councillor B Surtees commented that there was always this debate about the probity of making decisions that [the Council] might not find the grounds to resist them if it went to appeal. However, the Councillor congratulated officers on managing the costs involved.

RESOLVED:

That the Probity in Planning report covering the period 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017 be noted.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Committee noted the report presented by the Democratic Services Manager on the Chamber seating arrangements for the Council’s Area Planning Sub-Committees.

Councillor Philip commented that he had attended the Joint Meeting of the Development Management Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen on 20 April 2017 and that Area Planning Sub-Committee East was in favour of all public in the Chamber.

The Democratic Services Manager reported that security arrangements would be considered by the Governance Select Committee on 4 July 2017 and the Portfolio Holder, as there was a cost implication.

Councillor P Keska remarked that a member of the public in the gallery had actually leant right over the public gallery railings to see and hear, almost to the ‘tipping’ point, so he was in favour of public in the Chamber. Councillor B Surtees commented on two previous security incidences that had actually happened outside the Civic Offices when he was leaving. He acknowledged increased security could be expensive, but the costs involved should an incident occur could be higher. Councillor J H Whitehouse thought it appropriate that the public were seated in the Chamber and had received a letter from a person who regularly spoke at the planning committees on the difficulty in hearing and seeing from the public gallery. She commented on the need to improve the sound system and the ability of the public to see the screen from the public gallery. Councillor D Stallan agreed with previous external security issues.

Councillor A Grigg remarked that if officers anticipated a ‘difficult’ meeting, then officers should be allowed to take steps to manage appropriately and alter arrangements if this was required.

The Democratic Services Manager added that if officers received specific intelligence, this would be acted upon to minimise risk to the public and members / officers, as safety concerns were a priority, and they were quite used to implementing safety procedures if / when required.

Councillor J Philip stated that the audible and visual issues in the public gallery were a wider issue that needed to be resolved and were not just specific to this committee. Councillor B Surtees also thought the railings were quite low.

RESOLVED:

(1)  That the seating requirements be kept so the Area Planning Sub-Committee East sit as per this first meeting such that members can directly vacate the meeting through the ante-room.

(2)  That, subject to capacity constraints, all members of the public be seated in the Chamber irrespective of whether they had pre-registered to speak.