Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. The Council has adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings which is attached.

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.

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. The Sub-Committee noted the Council’s Protocol for Webcasting of Council and Other Meetings.

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 18 October 2006 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, Councillor M Colling declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of being a near neighbour of the application site. The Councillor had determined that his interest was prejudicial and would leave the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

·                     EPF/12/06 – 23 High Street, Epping.

(b)            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 item 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 application and voting thereon:

·                     EPF/1792/06 – 1 & 2 Brook Road, Epping.

As the Chairman had declared a prejudicial interest for the next item of business, Tree Preservation Order EPF/12/06 at 23 High Street in Epping, the Vice-Chairman had agreed to chair the meeting for the duration of that item.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs (6) and (24) 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 Chairman has permitted consideration of this issue as an urgent item due to an impending Planning Appeal in relation to the property due to be heard before the next scheduled meeting of the Sub-Committee.

In accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs (6) and (24) of the Council’s Procedure Rules, the Vice-Chairman had permitted consideration of this issue as an urgent item due to an impeding Planning Appeal in relation the property due to be heard before the next scheduled meeting of the Sub-Committee.

The Assistant Head of Planning and Economic Development (Planning Services) presented a report concerning a Tree Preservation Order at 23 High Street, Epping to protect a semi-mature sycamore tree with purple backed leaves. The Tree Preservation Order had been made due to the submission of a planning application that had indicated the tree would be removed. As several large trees in the area had already been removed, it was considered necessary to protect this tree as it had high visual amenity value, public amenity value due to its attractive foliage, and a high wildlife value. A planning inquiry on the development was due to be heard on 5 December following the Council’s refusal to grant planning consent.

An objection to the Tree Preservation Order had been received from Ian Keen limited on behalf of McCarthy & Stone (Developments) limited, however the Council had also received eleven letters in support of the Tree Preservation Order. The Council’s Landscaping Policy required that adequate provision be made for the retention of trees in such situations. It was felt that this was an important and much appreciated tree that would be felled during the proposed redevelopment of the site if it was not suitably protected.

            RESOLVED:

That Tree Preservation Order EPF/12/06 at 23 High Street, Epping be confirmed.

(Head of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report (PLN/002/2006-07).

The Head of Planning Services presented the bi-annual Planning Appeals report and highlighted that there had been no appeal decisions allowed by the Inspector following the Sub-Committee’s decision to refuse permission, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation. The Sub-Committee were further informed that the Best Value Performance Indicator had been amended to reflect only appeals against the refusal of planning permission, for which the Council had set a target of 24%. The Council’s performance of 26% had narrowly failed to achieve this target, however the Council’s performance was better than the national average of 33%. There were no award of costs against the Council during this period, and the Council were successful in securing a partial award of costs in one case. The Council’s performance continued to reflect the quality of decision-making by both officers and members.

            RESOLVED:

That the Planning Appeal Decisions for the period April 2006 to September 2006 be noted.

(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 – 2 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.