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:

“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 are 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 Democratic Services Officer 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.

As the Vice-Chairman had tended his apologies for the meeting, the Chairman invited nominations from the Committee for the appointment of a Vice-Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

Resolved:

(1)        That Councillor Y Knight be appointed as Vice Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

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 Committee, in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission. The Committee noted the advice provided for the public and speakers in attendance at Council Planning meetings.

(Director of Governance) To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Committee noted that Councillor Stallan was substituting for Councillor Hart and Councillor Waller was substituting for Councillor Boyce.

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

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Stallan declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of the applicant having been a former member of the Conservative group at the District Council and the applicant’s wife being a current member. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·                     EPF/2554/13   11 Mount End, Theydon Mount.

(b)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors J Lea and G Waller declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of the applicant’s wife being a current member of the Conservative group at the District Council. The Councillors had determined that their interest was not pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·                     EPF/2554/13   11 Mount End, Theydon Mount.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee (previously circulated).

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2014 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (DEV-001-2014/15).

The Committee considered a variation to the terms of an existing Section 106 Agreement for the approval of an application to redevelop land formerly in use as a Garden Centre to provide 21 flats, 80% of which would be affordable housing, at 212 Manor Road in Chigwell.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Control) reminded the Committee that the Section 106 Agreement had included a contribution of £40,000 towards the re-opening of a Post Office counter service in the local area. However, it had been subsequently highlighted that the need for such a counter within the vicinity no longer existed. The Post Office had subsequently confirmed that it would be detrimental to business carried out at adjacent branches operating locally, and that the removal of this obligation from the Section 106 Agreement was considered reasonable. Section 106 Agreements for other developments within Manor Road had secured the equivalent sum of £40,000 towards further provision of affordable housing, and therefore it was felt that no additional obligation should be sought from the Developer.

The Chairman, a local ward Member for Chigwell Row, confirmed that the small Post Office formerly in the area had been unsustainable and hence it had closed. Thus, a Post Office counter within the vicinity was not viable and the recommendation had his support.

Resolved:

(1)        That the following variation to the terms of the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement (to be completed within six months) be agreed:

            (a)        the removal of the obligation to contribute the sum of £40,000 toward          the re-opening of a Post Office counter within the locality of 212 Manor Road,            Chigwell.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (DEV-002-2014/15).

The Committee considered a variation to the terms of an existing Section 106 Agreement for the approval of an application to redevelop land formerly in use as a Garden Centre to provide 68 residential units, 52 of which would be affordable housing, at 212 Manor Road in Chigwell.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Control) reminded the Committee that the Section 106 Agreement had included a contribution of £120,000 towards the re-opening of a Post Office counter service in the local area. It was intended that this sum, along with a further £40,000 contribution from an adjacent development, would fund the operation of a Post Office counter from a nearby shop for three years. However, as reported earlier in the meeting, it had been subsequently highlighted that the need for such a counter within the vicinity no longer existed. The Post Office had subsequently confirmed that it would be detrimental to business carried out at adjacent branches operating locally, and that the removal of this obligation from the Section 106 Agreement was considered reasonable.

The Assistant Director reported that the payment of £120,000 was to be in three instalments; the first had been received at the commencement of the development and the second instalment was now due. The removal of this obligation would eliminate an element of community gain from the development, and Officers had negotiated that the first payment should be retained by the Council, rather than returned to the Developer, for the purposes of delivering further affordable housing within the local area. The Developer had finally agreed to this and therefore it was felt that no further contribution should be sought from the Developer.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Assistant Director stated that “…within the local area…” in recommendation 1(b) of the report would mean Chigwell, however in practice, the monies would be added to the Districtwide ‘pot’ and used more widely throughout the District. To this end, it was proposed (and seconded) by the Committee that “…within the local area…” should be removed from the recommendation as this would create a precedent for future applications. It was highlighted that the money received would be used to provide affordable housing within the District, for the benefit of residents within the District.

The Assistant Director concluded that any Section 106 monies should be necessary and directly related to the development. This particular development had now almost been completed and the Council’s Officers had performed admirably to negotiate the retention of the monies already received.

Resolved:

(1)        That the following variations to the terms of the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement (to be completed within six months) be agreed:

            (a)        the removal of the obligation to contribute the sum of £120,000 toward        the re-opening of a Post Office counter within the locality of 212 Manor Road,            Chigwell; and

            (b)        the additional obligation to contribute the existing paid sum of £40,000        toward the provision of affordable housing.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (DEV-003-2014/15).

The Committee considered an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for the retention of hardstanding and use of hardstanding for vehicle parking in association with the dwelling and stables at 11 Mount End, Theydon Mount.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Control) reported that the only issues to be considered was whether or not the evidence demonstrated the Applicant’s claim that, on the balance of probability, the hardstanding had been in existence for more than four years and that the parking use had taken place without interruption for a period of at least ten years. There were no national or local planning issues to consider. The application had been directly reported to the Committee as the Applicant was the spouse of a current serving District Councillor and the application related to a property in their ownership.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, and that the Parish Council had offered no objections to the application. Five representations had been received in support of the application, whilst one representation from Barkers Farm had objected to the application on the grounds that the area was actually a hard surface, not hard standing as it was without foundations, that the area had not been used by the applicant for a period of ten years for parking, and that the application was not supported by sworn affidavits.

The Assistant Director stated that the Council had aerial photographs of the area which had been taken in 2004, 2007 and 2011, and the area of hardstanding (along with the stables) were clearly visible on all three pictures. Normally, sworn statements would be sought by the Council, but the presence of the aerial photographs had confirmed the representations submitted by the majority of the respondents. No definition of hardstanding was given in either the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Order) Act or the Highways Act; the Oxford Dictionary definition of hardstanding was “an area with a hard surface for a vehicle to stand on”. Therefore, it was not considered necessary for the surface to sit upon foundations for it to be considered hardstanding.

The Assistant Director concluded that, in the opinion of Officers, sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate, on the balance of probability, that the claim was lawful. If the Committee agreed then it was proposed that the Certificate of Lawfulness be issued subject to the condition that the use was incidental to the use of the stables and the residential property at 11 Mount End, and would not form any extension to the existing residential curtilage.

Resolved:

(1)        That a Certificate of Lawful Development be issued for the retention of hardstanding and use of hardstanding for vehicle parking in association with the dwelling and stables at 11 Mount End in Theydon Mount;

(2)        That this Certificate be issued as the Local Planning Authority was satisfied of the lawfulness of the development by reason of the passage of time prescribed in Section 171(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (DEV-004-2014/15).

The Committee considered an application for a single storey rear extension, garage conversion and dormer window to the front elevation at 69 Baldwins Hill in Loughton.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Control) reported that this application had been considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee South on 11 June 2014 with an Officer recommendation to grant approval. The Officer recommendation was lost and a minority reference to this Committee was made. However, there was no formal proposal to refuse the application made at that time and therefore the application was before the Committee with the original Officer recommendation.

The Assistant Director stated that the proposed development was for a single storey rear extension which would be 3.5metres deep, 10.5 metres wide and 3.2 metres high. The application also included a front porch and new front dormer windows which would alter the façade of the dwelling. It was also proposed to change the garage into a habitable living space. The Committee noted the representations received from 71 Baldwins Hill, The Hills Amenity Society and Loughton Town Council; all of whom had objected to the application.

The Assistant Director reported that the main issues to consider were the effects of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours and the design of the proposal with regards to the existing building and its setting. After considering Neighbour Amenity issues and Design issues, Officers had concluded that the rear extension was of a modest size, the development would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring properties and the design respected the existing building. Therefore, it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Assistant Director commented upon the appeal decision from 1986. It did concern a similar sized extension and Officers were surprised that the appeal was dismissed, but the Planning Inspector had considered the potential loss of light to the neighbours. Planning Law had changed since then and the Applicant could now build a similar sized extension as in 1986.

The Committee heard from an Objector before proceeding to debate the application.

The Assistant Director assured that Committee that the Planning Officer had visited the site to consider the loss of light issue, and it was believed that the potential harm was not significant enough to justify refusal. Extensions of this size were normally acceptable. Planning rules had been relaxed since the appeal decision quoted in the report from 1986; it was acknowledged that more information regarding that decision should have been included in the report. It was confirmed that the Applicant could build a 4 metre single storey extension under their permitted development rights; the application was for an extension 3.5 metres long which would be 2 metres beyond the houses on either side.

Some members of the Committee had sympathy for the views expressed by the Objector and proposed a motion to refuse the application, on the grounds that:

·         the development, by virtue of its incongruous appearance would have a deleterious effect on the street scene;

• the host dwelling would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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 was no further urgent business for consideration.