Agenda and minutes

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

2.         The Chief Executive will read the following announcement:

“This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet and will be archived for later viewing. Copies of recordings may be made available on request.

By entering the chamber’s lower seating area you consenting to becoming part of the webcast.

If you wish to avoid being filmed you should move to the public gallery or speak to the webcasting officer”

The Assistant to the Chief Executive reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to 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 Committee held on 29 June 2011 (attached).

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2011 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was noted the Councillor L Leonard was substituting for Councillor C Pond at the meeting.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(a)       Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors B Sandler and K Chana declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 (planning application EPF/0116/11 – Garden Centre, 212 Manor Road, Chigwell) by virtue of being a member of Chigwell Parish Council.  The councillors advised that they had determined that their interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration and voting on the matter.

(b)       Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor J Wyatt declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 (planning application EPF/0116/11 – Valley Grown Nurseries, Paynes Lane, Nazeing) by virtue of being a deputy representative member of the LVRPA.  The councillor advised that he had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and that he would remain in the meeting for the consideration and voting on the matter.

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor R Bassett declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 7 (planning application EPF/0116/11 – Valley Grown Nurseries, Paynes Lane, Nazeing) by virtue of personal knowledge of the applicant.  The councillor advised that he proposed to leave the meeting for the consideration and voting on the matter.

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

The Committee gave further consideration to a site at 212 Manor Road, Chigwell which had last been considered on 5 April 2011.

At that meeting it had been resolved to give the applicants a further period in which to complete an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which sought to secure a number of planning obligations without which the Council was of the view that the ‘very special circumstances’ test on applications within the Green Belt was not met.

Since that meeting, officers from the Planning and Housing Services Directorates had held further discussions with the applicant to attempt to secure the Heads of Terms of the agreement.

The applicant had stated that the affordable aspects of the development were no longer viable as previously submitted. The tenure mix of affordable dwellings had been agreed at a time when there was an assumption that capital grant would be provided by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). This grant funding was no longer available on sites where there was a Section 106 Agreement. Without this grant funding, the applicant had expressed the view that only 33% of the dwellings could be provided as affordable. 

Additionally, it was considered that given the passage of time which had passed since the original approval, the changes in economic circumstances meant that the contribution towards the re-opening of the post office counter also affected the viability of the proposal. On balance, therefore, officers considered that the need for affordable housing on the site was greater than the need for the contribution to the Post Office Counter. The sum envisaged for this had therefore been taken into account in subsequent discussion with the applicant on tenure mix and number of affordable housing before the Committee.

Negotiations with the proposed housing association, Moat, had indicated that subject to consent of their board and of the HCA following the date of the meeting, it would be prepared to use its own grant monies to provide 60% of the total number of affordable homes as rented housing. The Committee noted two different permutations of tenure mix which demonstrated the effect of approval or non-approval from the HCA.

The Committee also noted that the Applicant was to transfer part of the site to provide surface level car parking for the adjacent site which was desirable and would reduce the number of dwellings by one.

Members heard from an objector to the scheme and late representations were reported.

The Committee were of the view that that, locally, there was a wish for the post office to be reopened. The original contribution was split with the adjacent site and was designed to cover a three year period of operation. It was noted that if the sum was included, it would have the effect of reducing the amount of affordable housing by 1-2 units reducing the overall percentage to approximately 76% and would require further negotiation with the applicant. The Committee considered and adopted a motion that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

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

The Committee considered a major development application in Nazeing.

The planning application sought the construction of a 87,119 m2 (approximately 9 hectares) glasshouse with ancillary warehouse, office space, welfare facility space and landscaping of the site to include habitat enhancement. The proposed development was to be sited south of an existing glasshouse site in Paynes Lane, Nazeing, but on land outside the local plan designated glasshouse area and therefore contrary to policy.

The proposed site, at the end of a private lane, lay within the Lee Valley Regional Park, it also contained a pond area and a footpath crossed the site. Paynes Lane was also a footpath.

The committee viewed plans of the proposed glasshouse and associated buildings and had visited the site in the week before the meeting. The applicant had also provided details to the local authority of a proposed unilateral agreement covering subdivision, removal of buildings if the site was not being used for production and maintaining a wildlife habitat.

The Committee noted that there had been considerable local objection and received additional representations received since the publication of the agenda including those of Nature England about the habitat area. The Environment Agency had, in a letter dated 24 August 2011, withdrawn their objection to the proposals subject to a number of additional suggested conditions dealing with contamination, groundwater and flooding.

In noting that the site was out with the designated glasshouse area, officers informed the committee that no other suitable site existed in the designated are and this site was immediately adjacent to it. The Highways Authority had commented that the junction of Paynes Lane with the main road was suitable and could accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposals but had not commented on the use of the use of the private road. The increase in traffic levels of approximately 8% was, in their view, insufficient to refuse planning permission.

The officers stated that the main issue for consideration was whether the governments emerging draft planning policy of the presumption in favour of sustainable economic development and the appropriateness of agricultural development outweighed the potential harm to the Metropolitan Greenbelt and the Regional Park given the visual impact of the building.

The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority had objected to the proposal. The Committee heard representations from the Park Authority, a local objector, the Parish Council and the applicant.

Members were of the view that the access via Paynes Lane was not fit for purpose and use by lorries would increase the chance of accidents along the narrow lane. Moreover members had concerns that the proposed glasshouse would have a material impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt and upon the residents of the area by its size and position. Members were mindful of the precedent for other such developments and the maintained objection from the LVRPA.

Members considered and approved a motion to refuse planning permission on those grounds.

Resolved:

That planning application EPF/1181/11 be refused for the following reasons:

(1)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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.

It was noted that there was no further business to be transacted at the meeting.