Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Democratic Services Officer 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 third parties).

If you are seated in the lower public seating area then 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 then you should move to the upper public gallery.

Could I please also remind Members to activate their microphones before speaking.”

The Senior Democratic Services Officer made a short address to remind everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the internet, and would be capable of repeated viewing, which could infringe their human and data protection rights.

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

(Director of Governance)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting in accordance with Council Rule S1 in the Constitution (Part 4 “The Rules” refers).

The Committee noted the following substitution for this meeting:

(a)        Cllr L Hughes for Cllr J Knapman.

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

(a)      Pursuant to the Council’s Member Code of Conduct, Councillors G Chambers, R Jennings and G Shiell declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of the Councillors having been a member of the Leisure Management Portfolio Holder Advisory Group. The Councillors had determined that their interest was non-pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·                 EPF/11139/17         Site of Proposed new Waltham Abbey Leisure                                Centre, Ninefields, Waltham Abbey.

(b)      Pursuant to the Council’s Member Code of Conduct, Councillor G Chambers declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of having had significant contact with the residents concerning this application. The Councillor had determined that his interest was non-pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·                 EPF/0456/17           19 Shaftesbury, Loughton.

(Director of Governance) To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 5 April 2017 (previously circulated).

Click here for District Development Management Committee Minutes 5 April 2017

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2017 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for a reserved matters application for appearance, layout, scale, massing, materials, external works, and landscaping of the Leisure Centre site only for approved outline consent EPF/2207/16.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for a reserved matters application for appearance, layout, scale, massing, materials, external works, and landscaping of the new Leisure Centre site only for approved outline consent EPF/2207/16 in Ninefields, Waltham Abbey. This application was before the Committee as it was classified as a “major application” for development where the Council was the landowner.

The Assistant Director stated that the wider application site was 3.73 hectares in size, and currently consisted of open space, a car parking area and the Ninefields Community Centre. The site was located to the south-west of Hillhouse within the Ninefields estate and was bordered to the south by a brook and a public footpath. The application site for the proposed Leisure Centre consisted of the south-eastern parcel of land which currently contained the vacant Community Centre, the immediately surrounding area of open space, and the adjacent car park area. The site was not located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Assistant Director reported that the proposed Leisure Centre building would contain a swimming pool, fitness suite, dance studio, group cycle room, reception area, café, community room and a staff room. A 98 space car park would be situated to the north and west of the building and accessed from the Hillhouse estate. Pedestrian access would be from the eastern elevation that opened onto the existing square and would replace the existing, and now vacant, Community Centre.

The Assistant Director conveyed that Planning Officers had concluded the proposed Leisure Centre was an appropriately designed building which would meet the needs of the local community whilst retaining and enhancing the appearance of the area. The proposed development would not cause any undue detrimental impact on the amenities of surrounding residents and would be served by adequate off-street parking provision. There had been no objections to the proposed details of the development from any statutory consultees, and the application complied with all relevant Local Plan policies and Government guidance, so therefore the application was recommended for approval.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in respect of this application, including two objections from residents concerning the potential detrimental impact on parking and residential amenities, and two further comments from residents regarding vehicle access to the new Leisure Centre. Waltham Abbey Town Council had no objections to the proposal. The Committee heard from an Objector before proceeding to debate the application.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Assistant Director stated that the new Leisure Centre would be situated within a residential catchment area, and the parking provision was low but Planning Officers considered it acceptable and sustainable. It was hoped that more people would walk to the Leisure Centre as it was in a residential area, and this was the justification for reducing the parking provision from 120 at the outline planning stage to 98 in the application before the Committee. The dimensions of each parking space was 5.5 metres by 2.9 metres on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the variation  of Condition 2 'plan numbers' on planning application EPF/1269/15 (Demolition of existing Public House and 10 and 12 Newmans Lane and construction of 8 x 1 bed flats and 22 x 2 bed flats in two blocks with undercroft parking and landscaping).

Alterations to include: enlarged communal  deck,  removal  of  upper communal  area,  change to balcony design/size, alterations to window design,  walls  to roof terraces, alterations to materials,  grills  at  car park  level  replaced by brick lattice and internal alterations.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the variation of Condition 2 ‘Plan Numbers’ on planning application EPF/1269/15 (Demolition of existing Public House and 10 & 12 Newmans Lane and construction of 8 x 1-bedroom flats and 22 x 2-bedroom flats in two blocks with undercroft parking and landscaping) at the site of the former Golden Lion Public House in Borders Lane, Loughton. This application was before the Committee as it was considered a major category application (more than ten dwellings) as defined by the Department of Communities & Local Government for development on Council-owned land.

The Assistant Director reported that the site was roughly rectangular and situated on the north side of Borders Lane at the junction with Newmans Lane. The site was well screened at the junction by existing vegetation with the southern part of the site grassed over. Several trees were preserved, including a veteran Oak tree. The southern part of the site contained the Public House building, with a car parking area to the north. Beyond the car park was 10 & 12 Newmans Lane, a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings; no. 10 was unoccupied and was currently boarded up due to subsidence issues. The land to the east of the site was a relatively recently developed housing estate and was previously the ‘upper’ site to Epping Forest College. Demolition work had started on the site. The proposed alterations included an enlarged communal deck, removal of the upper communal area, changes to the balcony design and size, alterations to the window design, wall to roof terraces, alterations to materials, the grills at car park level to be replaced by brick lattice and internal alterations.

The Assistant Director informed the Committee that Planning Officers had concluded the proposed amendments to the approved scheme were considered acceptable and did not give rise to any excessive design or amenity issues. There was one small change suggested to condition 4, adding the words “…of Block B…” to be clear which block the condition was referring to, and with that amendment, the proposal was recommended for approval.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in respect of this application, including one letter of objection and two letters raising concerns about the proposals from nearby residential dwellings. There were no public speakers registered for this application, so the Committee proceeded to debate the application.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Assistant Director stated that all of the flats in a block would have access to the first floor communal area, although some of the flats did have their own balcony. The parking provision remained as per the original application, which was considered acceptable given the sustainable location of the site.

Cllr Kane highlighted that the communal area on the second floor was being removed from the scheme, and the first floor communal area had been increased in depth by 4 metres to compensate. Cllr Pond also requested that the use of fire-proof cladding for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the erection of 24 x 1 bedroom units in two, two storey blocks for       occupation by horticultural workers on the nearby nursery.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the erection of 24 x one-bedroomed units in 2 x two-storey blocks for occupation by horticultural workers from the nearby nursery at Shottentons Farm at Peck Hill in Nazeing. The application was before the Committee as Area Planning Sub-Committee West had voted for it to be referred to the Committee for a decision.

The Assistant Director stated that the application site was 0.31 hectares in size and located just off Pecks Hill, to the south-east of Shottentons Farm, within the relatively rural area of Nazeing. The site was currently an open field which had not been previously developed, although there were a large number of glasshouses to the north and a farm complex to the south. Access to the site was from a private track which started at the junction between Pecks Hill and Sedge Hill. The site was located within the Metropolitan Green Belt but not within a conservation area.

The Assistant Director reported that Planning Officers had concluded the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt through the erection of two visually prominent and substantial two-storey buildings. The applicant had failed to demonstrate the very special circumstances required to outweigh the identified harm, as there was no compelling justification that there was an essential requirement for such horticultural dwellings. The proposal also failed to respect the prevailing character and appearance of the area as the design of the proposed dwellings were reminiscent of a motel, and created a development incongruous within its setting. Therefore, Planning Officers had recommended that planning permission be refused.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, including the fact that no representations had been received from the 4 neighbouring properties. In addition, Nazeing Parish Council had offered no objections, but requested a condition restricting the use of the units to horticultural workers employed on the farm and for the units to be demolished if that use subsequently ceased. The Committee heard from the Applicant’s Agent before proceeding to debate the application.

Cllr Jennings had concerns about the accommodation blocks having a second storey and agreed with Planning Officers that the buildings would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Cllr Jennings had sympathy with the reason for the application but felt that this application was a step too far. Cllr Brady also had concerns about the harm that the second storey would cause to the openness of the Green Belt, and felt that the application would be more agreeable if the accommodation blocks were only a single storey in height. Cllr Kauffman agreed that the proposed accommodation blocks were too high and that the buildings could be redesigned to give the required accommodation. The proposed blocks looked too much like a barracks and the second storey could be housed in the roof.

However, Cllr Kane felt that the application demonstrated the very special circumstances necessary for development in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(Director of Governance) 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.

(1)        That, as agreed by the Chairman and in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the following item of urgent business be considered following the publication of the agenda:

            (a)        EPF/0456/17 – 19 Shaftesbury, Loughton.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report  for the removal of the existing double width garage and erection of a two     storey side extension.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the removal of the existing double-width garage and the erection of a two-storey side extension at 19, Shaftesbury in Loughton. This application had been referred to the Committee by a minority reference from Area Planning Sub-Committee South at its meeting on 28 June 2017, after the Sub-Committee had originally voted to refuse planning permission for the application.

The Assistant Director stated that the site was set by the inside of a bend in the road and contained a semi-detached, end-of-terrace house with a garage attached to the side. The Shaftesbury estate was a cul-de-sac of houses dating from circa 1970; the original vision for the estate was for a small development of mock Georgian houses with the focus on uniformity. This character had essentially been retained. The cul-de-sac was not subject to any parking restrictions and there was a high demand for on-street parking. The proposed extension would adjoin the flank of the existing house and create two new bedrooms on the first floor.

The Assistant Director reported that Planning Officers had originally concluded the design was considered acceptable with regard to the loss of openness at this part of the street scene. Unlike the previous application for this site, which sought to demolish the existing garage and erect a new dwelling, this application for a side extension to the existing house was considered an acceptable development in respect of visual amenity and character. Therefore, the application had originally been recommended for approval. However, Area Planning Sub-Committee South had refused the application on the basis that, by reason of its bulk and height, the proposed extension would not appear sufficiently subservient to the existing house, and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the locality.

The Committee noted the summary of representations that had been received in respect of this application, including 13 letters of objection from residents of the Shaftesbury estate and three letters of objection from residents of nearby Forest Road. Loughton Town Council had objected to the application, on the grounds that it was an over-development, it would set a precedent in a street where the original concept had been retained for more than 40 years, neighbouring properties in both Shaftesbury and Forest Road would suffer from over-looking, and the symmetry of the semi-detached houses would be lost. The Committee heard from an Objector and the Applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

The Assistant Director confirmed that the previous application to build a second dwelling on the site had been refused; the current application was different and smaller. The Applicant would need further planning permission to convert the proposed extension into a separate dwelling. A further condition to limit the use of the extension as ancillary to the existing dwelling was unnecessary. Planning Officers had not seen any potential terracing effect from the application and had also originally felt that the application had not demonstrated any visual harm to the area.

Cllr Pond  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (DEV-002-2017/18).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented the Annual Report on Section 106 Legal Agreements for 2016/17.

The Assistant Director stated that a register of all Section 106 Legal Agreements since 2001 was held by the Council, from which an annual report was prepared for Members setting out the progress in the completion of agreements throughout the year and the benefits secured. This had previously been reported to the Governance Select Committee, but it had been decided that future reports should be made to this Committee.

The Assistant Director reported that the six Legal Agreements negotiated and agreed throughout the year would provide the following benefits:

·                 £5.35million to be received into the public purse;

·                 the transfer of land and open space to the Council;

·                 affordable housing contributions; and

·                 funding for a local bus service for Chigwell.

The Assistant Director reported that the benefits actually realised throughout the year from 11 Legal Agreements had provided a total £2.83million received into the public purse.

Cllr Brady reminded the Committee that when it had granted planning permission for the site of the former Tottenham Hotspur Training Ground at Luxborough Lane, Chigwell in December 2014, it had also been agreed to raise the bridleway parapets over the M11 motorway. However, this had not yet been completed as promised,  which was making it dangerous for horse riders from using this route. The Assistant Director reminded the Committee that this had never formed part of the Legal Agreement signed by the Council with the Developer, but undertook to contact Essex County Council in an effort to progress the matter.

Resolved:

(1)        That the progress made with the negotiation and implementation of the provisions of Section 106 Legal Agreements during the 2016/17 financial year be noted.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (DEV-001-2017/18).

The Senior Democratic Services Officer presented a report on the public seating arrangements for the Committee to consider.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer reminded the Committee that there had been a disturbance amongst members of the public at the meeting of Area Planning Sub-Committee West on 19 October 2016. This had resulted in the decision being taken to seat the members of the Planning (Sub-)Committees on the opposite side of the Chamber, and only allow those members of the public registered to speak to sit in the Council Chamber itself with all other members of the public to be seated upstairs in the Public Gallery. Following the implementation of these measures, Members of Area Plans Sub-Committee East had expressed a preference for all members of the public to be seated in the Council Chamber again, as they felt that it was difficult to gauge public opinion on specific proposals and for the public to follow the proceedings of the meeting if all but the registered speakers were upstairs in the Public Gallery.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer stated that, at their meeting on 20 April 2017, the Development Management Chairman and Vice-Chairman had agreed that each of the three Area Planning Sub-Committees plus the District Development Management Committee should individually consider and determine arrangements for public seating at their first meeting of the municipal year. The Committee was therefore requested to consider and agree its own arrangements for public seating for all future meetings.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer also informed the Committee that an investigation into the possibility of providing a visible security presence at all Council Planning meetings would be made, with the results reported to the Governance Select Committee in due course.

Some Councillors preferred all of the public to be downstairs, as the design of the Public Gallery prevented the unobstructed viewing of proceedings. However, other Councillors preferred that only the registered speakers be allowed downstairs. Cllr C Pond recounted that vicious threats were uttered to members of the Committee in the car park after an application in Abridge was considered, and Cllr Shiell recalled that agenda have been thrown from the Gallery by the public. Cllr C Pond also highlighted that the Monitoring Officer had been written to by Cllr C Roberts regarding the seating and security arrangements for Area Planning Sub-Committee South, which had recently returned to being held in the Council Chamber.

The Committee acknowledged that it heard contentious planning applications as a matter of course; the Chairman stated that he preferred the current arrangements as he felt safer and it was easier to clear the Council Chamber if there were any incidents. Cllr Stallan proposed that the current public seating arrangements be kept in place and this was agreed by the Committee.

Resolved:

(1)        That the public seating arrangements currently in operation be continued with, with only registered public speakers to be allowed in the Council Chamber and all other members of the public to be seated upstairs in the Public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Exclusion

To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) or are confidential under Section 100(A)(2):

The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, requires the Council to consider whether maintaining the exemption listed above outweighs the potential public interest in disclosing the information. Any member who considers that this test should be applied to any currently exempted matter on this agenda should contact the proper officer at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Background Papers

Article 17 (Access to Information) of the Constitution defines background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)        disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)        have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report and does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

The Council will make available for public inspection one copy of each of the documents on the list of background papers for four years after the date of the meeting. Inspection of background papers can be arranged by contacting either the Responsible Officer or the Democratic Services Officer for the particular item.

The Committee noted that there was no business which necessitated the exclusion of the public and press.