Agenda and minutes

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

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2005 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

(a)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors Mrs S Perry, C Whitbread and J M Whitehouse declared a personal interest in the following items of the agenda, by virtue of being a member of Epping Town Council. The Councillors had determined that their interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

·                    EPF/1262/05 – 17 Bower Hill, Epping;

·                    LB/EPF/1352/05 – The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common, Coopersale, Epping;

·                    EPF/1351/05 – The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common, Coopersale, Epping; and

·                    EPF/1390/05 – The Old Rectory, Coopersale Common, Coopersale, Epping.

(b)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs A Grigg declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of being a member of North Weald Parish Council. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·                    EPF/781/05 – The Croft, Weald Hall Lane, Thornwood, North Weald.

(c)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs A Grigg declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of her husband being a member of North Weald Golf Club. The Councillor had determined that her interest was prejudicial and would leave in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

·                    EPF/1191/05 – North Weald Golf Club, Rayley Lane, North Weald.

(d)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor R Glozier declared a personal interest in the following items of the agenda, by virtue of being a friend and neighbour of the applicant. The Councillor had determined that her interest was prejudicial and would leave in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

·                    EPF/1137/05 – Trail, Poplar Row, Theydon Bois; and

·                    LB/EPF/1146/05 – Trail, Poplar Row, Theydon Bois.

Recommendation:

That the Area Plans Sub Committee approve the making of a Tree Preservation Order in respect of one Lime and one Pine tree at the above.

Background

The trees stand in the Conservation Area, on land that had been believed to be highway land. A Conservation Area Notice of Felling has been received as of 5 October 2005, and a Notice has also been posted on the land.

The trees are healthy, mature and visually important in the Conservation Area. However, it is claimed that they have contributed to structural damage at The Rectory.

Consideration of Evidence

To judge the strength of evidence provided in such cases the Council has a pro forma that conforms to best practice. Basically the evidence should include consideration of the trees; an assessment of the damage; full evidence that implicates the trees, including monitoring of the movement of the property, in order to be reasonably sure that the trees are the main causative agent.

In this instance, however, this evidence is almost entirely lacking. All that can be said with certainty is that the engineers appointed by the insurance company believe both that the two trees are the main cause of whatever damage (unspecified) has occurred, and that if the trees were felled there would be no recurrence of the damage.

The diocese of Chelmsford owns the property. They have separately confirmed that damage was experienced in 2003 (which was an `event year’) but had stopped in 2004. The property was repaired but not underpinned. Therefore, although this is not clear from the notification, it appears that the purpose of the application is preventative and not to cure existing damage.

Consequences of a Tree Preservation Order

The purpose of the Tree Preservation Order would be to require further information to substantiate the claim for felling, and to give the council an influence on the future of the trees. However, given that there is no ongoing movement it may be difficult to specify further information, other than a levels survey, which would conclusively prove the trees’ involvement in past damage. Even then there would be no evidence as to future risk.

The Tree Preservation Order would also allow consideration to be given to management of the trees and indeed whether both trees are likely to be equally threatening to the property in future.

There is no right of compensation against the making of the Tree Preservation Order as such, however, there is a right of compensation for the financial penalties that may be suffered as the result of a decision under the Tree Preservation Order. It is likely that an application to fell the trees under the Tree Preservation Order would follow and a decision on the future of the trees would then have to be made with a possibility of compensation being claimed.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the Committee consider the implications of making the Tree Preservation Order and given that it may be difficult to refuse felling in respect of a  ...  view the full agenda text for item 31.

In accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman permitted consideration of an application for a Tree Preservation Order on two trees in Hemnall Street adjacent to The Rectory, Hartland Road, Epping as a matter of urgency in order to prevent their imminent felling.

The Assistant Head of Planning and Economic Development informed the Sub-Committee that a Conservation Area Notice of felling had been received on 5 October 2005, in respect of one Lime tree and one Pine tree on land in Hemnall Street, Epping adjacent The Rectory, Hartland Road, Epping; a notice had also been posted on the land. The trees were considered to be healthy, mature and visually important in the Conservation Area, however, it had been claimed that they had contributed to structural damage at The Rectory.

The Tree Preservation Order would require further information to be provided to substantiate the claim for felling, and give the Council an influence on the future of the trees. It would also allow consideration to be given to the management of the trees and whether both trees were equally threatening to the property. It was felt that if the order was not made then it was highly likely that both trees would be felled on the expiry of the 6-week notice period.

The Assistant Head of Planning and Economic Development reassured the Sub-Committee that there was no right of compensation against the making of the Tree Preservation Order, but cautioned that compensation could be liable if it was proved that the trees were damaging The Rectory but permission to fell was not given by the Council.

            RESOLVED:

That the Head of Legal, Administration and Estates be authorised to make and seal a Tree Preservation Order in respect of one Lime and one Pine tree on land in Hemnall Street, Epping adjacent The Rectory, Hartland Road, Epping.

(Head of Planning and Economic Development)  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.

The Sub-Committee considered a schedule of applications for planning permission.

            RESOLVED:

That the planning applications numbered 1 – 9 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes.

(Head of Planning and Economic Development) Schedules of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning and Economic Development under delegated powers since the last meeting of a Plans Subcommittee may be inspected in the Members Room or at the Planning and Economic Development Information Desk at the Civic Offices, Epping.

The Sub-Committee noted that schedules of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning and Economic Development under delegated authority since the last meeting had been circulated and could be inspected at the Civic Offices.