Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and outlined the procedures and arrangements agreed by the Council, to enable persons to address the Sub-Committee in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 20 April 2005 as a correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 20 April 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, Councillor Ms Stavrou declared personal interests in agenda items 6 (8) (EPF/1826/04 Sewardstone Hall, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey) by being a regular user of a business in the site area and 6(10) (EPF/267/05 – Land Adj. Rosemead, Pynest Green Lane, High Beach, Waltham Abbey).  The Councillor declared that her interests were prejudicial and indicated that she would leave the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items.

(b)                           Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Spinks declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 (10) (EPF/267/05 Land Adj. Rosemead, Pynest Green Lane, High Beach, Waltham Abbey).  The Councillor declared that his interests were prejudicial and indicated that he would leave the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item.

(c)            Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs D Borton declared a personal interest in agenda items 6 (2) (EPF/1437/05 Vine Cottage, Betts Lane, Nazeing), 6(3) (EPF1509/04 Maplecroft, Maplecroft Lane, Nazeing) and 6(4) (EPF/437/05 Netherkidders Farm, Laundry Lane, Nazeing), by being the ward member.  The Councillor declared that her interests were not prejudicial and indicated that she would not leave the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item.

(d)               Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs P Smith declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 (1) (EPF/2400/04 High House, Epping Upland), by being a parish council member.  The Councillor declared that her interests were not prejudicial and indicated that she would not leave the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item.

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 reported that there was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting.

(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, Planning applications numbered 1 – 10 be determined as set out in the annex to these minutes.

Recommendation:

That the committee notes the outcomes of the appeals.

Background

(Head of Planning Services) In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor of November 2000, this report advises the decision-making committee of the results of all successful appeals, particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation.  The purpose is to inform the committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and, in cases where the refusal is found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs may be made against the Council.

         To set the context, a Best Value Performance Indicator was for district councils to aim to have less than 40% of their decisions overturned on appeal with the national average of about 33%.  In fact in recent years the Council has been more successful with only 31% overturned in 1999/00, 25% in 2000/01, 24% in 2001/02, 27% in 2002/03 and only 18% in 2003/04.

Performance

Over the six-month period between October 2004 and March 2005, the Council received 47 decisions on appeals – 44 planning appeals and 3 enforcement appeals.  Of the 44 planning appeals, 14 were allowed (32%) and of the 3 enforcement appeals none were allowed – a combined total of 29% of the Council’s decisions overturned.

For the year (04/04 to 03/05) as a whole, there were 79 planning appeal decisions and 12 enforcement appeals, with 23 planning appeals allowed and 2.5 enforcement appeals allowed, providing an overall proportion for the year of 28% of the Council’s decisions being overturned at appeal.

Planning Appeals

Of those 14 planning appeals allowed, 4 were allowed following decisions by committee to refuse contrary to officer’s recommendation.  Those 4 were:

EPF/1007/03 – Fishing lakes and associated buildings at the former Thornwood Camp, Carpenters Arms Lane, Thornwood (Area Committee B 12/11/03)

EPF/2207/03 – Single and two storey side and rear extensions at 58, Loughton Way, Buckhurst Hill (Area Committee A 11/02/04)

EPF/416/04 – Erection of two storey side and rear extension at 11, Primley Lane, Sheering (Area Committee C 19/05/04)

EPF/1254/04 – New dwelling at 87, Monkswood Avenue, Waltham Abbey (Area Committee D 29/09/04)

To complete the picture, officers were successful in sustaining a committee decision to refuse, when officers had recommended granting permission, in 5 cases - nos. 18, 21, 24, 32 and 33 on the attached list.

Costs

Costs were awarded against the Council in just 1 appeal.  This was in regard to the two cases at Old House Farm, Old House Lane, Nazeing where the Council sought to argue that the nature of the traffic implications from the retention and expansion of commercial activities at this former farm complex was so different from the former farm traffic that amenity and environmental concerns were justified.    The Inspector concluded that the Council should have had greater regard to the traffic information submitted at application stage and that the refusal of permission was unreasonable.   In the circumstances he made a full award in the appellant’s favour of the costs of the whole appeal.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 6.

The Sub-Committee, in compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor of November 2000, received a report detailing all successful appeal decisions, particularly those refused by Committee contrary to officers recommendations. The purpose was to inform the Committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and, in cases where the refusal has found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs may be made against the Council.

It was noted that over the six-month period between October 2004 and March 2005, the Council received 47 decisions on appeals – 44 planning appeals and 3 enforcement appeals.  Of the 44 planning appeals 14 were allowed (32%) and of the 3 enforcement appeals none were allowed– a combined total of 29% of the Council’s decisions overturned. And, that the Council’s performance for this 6 month period was somewhat below last year’s exceptional performance but consistent with previous periods and has exceeded the BVPI and the national average. The Committee wished to covey their congratulations to the officers for their part in achieving this.

                        RESOLVED:

That the outcomes of the planning appeals, particularly those with cost awards, be noted.

(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 details of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning and Economic Development under delegated authority since the last meeting had been circulated to all members and were available for inspection at the Civic Offices.