Agenda and minutes

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

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet and will be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available for those that request it.

If you are seated in the lower 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 move to the upper public gallery”

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 meetings of the Committee held on 10 October and 16 November 2006 (attached).

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 10 October and 16 November 2006 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Committee noted that Councillor J Wyatt would be substituting for Councillor J Hart at the meeting.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(a)            Pursuant to the Councils Code of Member Conduct, Councillor J Wyatt declared a personal interest in item 8 (White Lodge/The Limes, Sewardstone Road) by virtue of being a member of Planning Subcommittee D who had originally considered the application. The Councillor indicated that he proposed to stay in the meeting and take part in the debate on that item.

(b)            Pursuant to the Councils Code of Member Conduct, Councillor K Wright declared a personal interest in item 7 (The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common) by virtue of a previous professional relationship with the Applicants Agent in a Parish Council capacity. The Councillor indicated that he proposed to stay in the meeting and take part in the debate on that item.

(c)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors M Colling, and Mrs A Grigg declared a personal interest in the following items of the agenda. The Councillors had determined that their interest was prejudicial and would leave the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·                     EPF/2014/06 – The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common, Epping; and

·                     EPF/2015/06 – The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common, Epping.

(d)             Pursuant to the Councils Code of Member Conduct, Councillor S Stavrou declared a personal interest in item 8 (White Lodge/The Limes, Sewardstone Road) by virtue of being the ward Councillor. The Councillor indicated that she proposed to stay in the meeting and take part in the debate on that item.

(Head of Planning and Economic Development) At the meeting of Area Planning Subcommittee B on 17 January 2007 these applications were referred to the District Development Control Committee for determination. This was due to declarations of prejudicial interest made by members at that meeting making the Subcommittee inquorate for those items.

The report of the main application and the Grade II listed building application are reproduced herewith for determination.

The Committee noted that at the meeting of Area Planning Subcommittee B on 17 January 2007 two applications were referred to the District Development Control Committee for determination. This was due to declarations of prejudicial interest made by members at that meeting making the Subcommittee inquorate for those items.

The Committee noted that they had been asked to consider two applications. Firstly an application for the erection of a single storey rear extension behind an existing store/garage block connecting to main house, which was to provide a games room.

Secondly they had been asked to consider the Grade II Listed building application for the same development.

The application site was a large detached grade II listed former rectory, dating from the 19th century, on the southern edge of Coopersale Village. The site commanded panoramic views to the south. The whole site was within the Green Belt. The extension being requested now exceeded limits on size of extension permitted within the green belt taking into account a previous addition of a conservatory.

Previous application on the site had been refused as they had proposed the extension into the open parts of the site.

Members were asked to consider the application against the criteria of policy GB14A. The Committee however considered that the application was contrary to the policy in respect of the size of the extension proposed. They heard speakers both for and against the application.

The committee voted on the officer recommendation that the application should be granted which was defeated. Members proposed the refusal of the main planning application on Green Belt policy grounds which found support. Following the refusal of the main application the committee considered the listed building application. The Committee considered that based upon the criteria for such applications, that element of the proposal could be granted.

Resolved:

(1)            That planning application EPF/2014/06 at The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common be refused for the following reason:

(i)            The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.  The proposed development is at odds with Government advice, the policies of the adopted Local Plan and the Approved Essex Structure Plan in that it does not constitute a reasonable extension to an existing dwelling.  Thus this application is unacceptable because the proposed extension, by reason of its size and siting would harm the objectives of the Metropolitan Green Belt and is contrary to Policies GB2A and GB14A of the adopted Local Plan'

(2)            That listed building application EPF/2015/06 at The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common be granted subject to the following conditions:

(i)            The works hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years, beginning with the date on which the consent was granted.

(ii)            Details of the types and colours of the external finishes shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of the development, and the development shall be implemented in accordance with such approved details.

(iii)            Additional drawings that show details of proposed new windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

(Head of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

The Committee considered a planning application which sought outline approval for the development of a site at White Lodge/The Limes on Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey to provide 119 homes, car parking, a community shop, means of access and other ancillary works. The site was close to the border with the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

The development would provide a mix of semi detached houses and flats of 2 or 3 storeys in height with an indicative plan arrangement of 52 flats and 67 houses and maisonettes.

The development proposed the provision of 80% affordable accommodation and 20% for private ownership.

The Committee noted that the siting, design, landscaping and external appearance of the development were all reserved for subsequent approval, bit that they were being asked to agree the proposals relating to the means of access.

The site was situated on the eastern side of Sewardstone Road (A112) and covered an area of approximately 4.1 ha.  To the southwest of the site stood a single dwelling known as ‘White Lodge’ and immediately to the north of this property was the remains of ‘The Limes’, another dwelling had subsequently been demolished due to fire damage. 

A watercourse ran through the development site (known as the White Lodge Brook ordinary Watercourse), approximately east to west. Preliminary sketches submitted with the application indicated that there were to be 2 road bridges crossing this channel.

To the south of the site was a corridor of land owned by the conservators of Epping Forest, which ran adjacent to the site from east to west, beginning from the Sewardstone Road.   Within this strip of land was a public bridleway.

The site was located wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Officers had on balance recommended to the Planning Subcommittee D that permission should be refused based upon:

(a)        Green Belt Policy;

(b)            Access onto a busy distributor road (Sewardstone Road);

(c)        Ribbon development; and

(d)        The proximity to the watercourse.

The Subcommittee, however, had regard to the fact that development had taken place on this site before (albeit not changing its status to ‘previously developed land’); that it was adjoining a built up area with services and that it was served by 4 bus routes, as well as the package of benefits that were proposed together with the suggested proportion of affordable housing.

The Committee therefore considered whether very special circumstances existed on this site that outweighed the harm caused to the Green Belt. The proposals included the applicants entering into an agreement to provide:

(a)        That 80% of the number of dwellings would be affordable housing, 60% of which would be for rent and 40% for shared equity home-buy. 

(b)        A commitment to sustainable housing design, to achieve the new 6 star rating from the Code to Sustainable Homes;

(c)            Compliance with an approved Landscape Management Plan;

(d)        The transfer of an area of woodland to the Conservators of Epping Forest

(e)        The widening and improvement of the nearby bridleway;

(f)         A commitment to laying  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

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.

The Committee noted that there were no further items of urgent business for consideration at the meeting.