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 31 August 2005 as correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 31 August 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 P Brooks, Mrs R Gadsby, and D Spinks declared personal interests in agenda items 8 (4) (EPF/120/05 Land between Brookmeadow Wood and Fernhall Wood, Upshire, Waltham Abbey).  The Councillors declared that their interests were prejudicial and indicated that they would leave the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items.

(b)            Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs D Borton declared a personal interest in agenda items 8 (1) (EPF/582/05 Hill View, St Leonard’s, Nazeing), 8(2) (EPF/1261/05 Land Adjacent to 16 Western Road, Nazeing) and 8 (3) (EPF/1279/05 83 Old Nazeing Road, Nazeing) by virtue of being a Parish Councillor.  The Councillor declared that her interests were not prejudicial and indicated that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items.

(c)            Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Ms S Stavrou declared a personal interest in agenda items 6 (EPF/01/05 Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order, Lower Cottage, Daws Hill, Sewardstone), and 8(4) (EPF/120/05 Land between Brookmeadow Wood and Fernhall Wood, Upshire, Waltham Abbey).  The Councillor declared that her interests were not prejudicial and indicated that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items.

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.

Recommendation:

That Tree Preservation Order EPF/01/05 is confirmed subject to the amendment of the plan to omit T3- Pine.

Background:

Tree Preservation Order EPF/01/05 was made to protect 6 trees at Lower Cottage, Daws Hill, Sewardstone.

The trees intended to be protected are:

T1 Hawthorn

T2 Oak

T3 Pine

T4 Oak

T5 Norway maple

T6 Sorbus (whitebeam)

However, T3, Pine was removed before service, therefore the TPO never applied to it.

The Tree Preservation Order was made as a result of a planning application to introduce a driveway, parking area, garage and new access entrance requiring the removal of the above trees.

The local landscape is that of mature woodland. The group is in context with this native forest character and the trees are considered important landscape features collectively, since none are individually outstanding.

Objection to the Tree Preservation Order:

An objection to the Order has been made by the owners of the site.

The grounds of the objection are as follows:

It is not accepted that these trees provide high amenity or a significant contribution to landscape character. The area is very heavily treed which provide a background against which these specimens do not perform a role of particular importance.  Other nearby trees are not affected by the development proposal.

There are no footways on Daws Hill and its narrowness, steepness and the volume of traffic do not allow for detailed contemplation of the surroundings by drivers or pedestrians. It is acknowledged that these trees can be seen from the highway but it is strongly doubted whether their removal would cause any real reduction in amenity.

It is asserted that the Hawthorn(T1) and Whitebeam (T6) are relatively small and cannot be seen to contribute in any significant way at all.

Head of Planning Services Comments:

The detailed response to the grounds of objection is listed below:

The landscape character of Daws Hill is mature woodland and it is for this reason that this group warrants protection. The various trees help to soften the presence of buildings set at elevated positions from the road.

The weight of traffic, size and gradient of the road still allows a public view of these trees. Their removal to facilitate an entrance, driveway and parking area would be very noticeable and detrimental to the landscape character.

It is accepted that T1 and T6 are not large growing trees and are not fully mature.  However, they are both clearly visible and contribute positively to the wooded character of this dramatically sloping site and deserve inclusion in the protected group.

Conclusions:

The group of trees protected by this order are an established public amenity, adding continuity to the local landscape character. Landscaping policy requires that adequate provision be made for the retention of trees in these situations. These trees are under threat from the planning proposal and therefore deserve protection. On the basis that new proposals meet with planning approval it would be acceptable to accommodate a suitable replacement for T1 in a more prominent location.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 31.

A Tree Preservation Order (EPF/01/05) was made to protect 6 trees at Lower Cottage, Daws Hill, Sewardstone. However one of the trees (T3- Pine) was removed before service, therefore the TPO was never applied.

Members were asked to confirm the amended TPO to omit the removed tree.

            RESOLVED:

That Tree Preservation Order EPF/01/05 is confirmed subject to the amendment of the Plan to omit T3-Pine.

RECOMMENDATION:

For consideration of the options for enforcement of the terms of condition 2, with a view to the service of an enforcement notice.

Background

In the early 1990s the fortunes of the Lee Valley glasshouse industry were on the increase.  The widespread dereliction that had occurred in the 70s and early 80s was disappearing with considerable investment being made in new glasshouses and new markets were being developed.   However, it became clear that the relatively small nurseries that tended to predominate within the Lee Valley could not meet the increasing demands of the supermarket chains on their own.   In order to comply with those demands, the produce from the individual nurseries was going to have to be gathered by central packhouses for packing and distribution to the supermarket chains in accordance with their rigorous requirements.

In 1993 planning applications were made for 3 such central distribution packhouses within Epping Forest.  Each was supported by the Council.  One fell outside the Lee Valley Regional Park boundary and was approved by the Council, but the other two were within the Park boundaries and because the Park Authority objected to the applications, they were ‘called-in’ by the Secretary of State and considered at a public inquiry.    In the event, planning permission was granted for each application, one of which related to Stubbins Hall Nursery at Holyfield, close to the entrance to Hayes Hill Farm and Fishers Green recreation area.

The permission was subject to a number of conditions, including no.2:       

“The movement of Heavy Goods Vehicles to and from the site shall be limited to between the hours of 07.30 and 21.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and to between the hours of 07.30 and 16.00 on Saturdays and Sundays.”

At the time, this met the operational requirements of the operators.

Recent History

Since that time, the requirements of the supermarkets have become all the more rigorous and demanding to meet, such that the time taken to cut, pack and distribute fresh produce to supermarket shelves is paramount and the operators found that, if they were to retain the supermarket orders, they could not comply with the terms of that condition.  Complaints were first received in January 2003 that the hours were not being observed.

In March 2004 the operators applied to have this condition removed altogether (EPF/496/04).  This was refused permission under delegated powers in May 2004.    A subsequent application was submitted in October 2004 seeking permission for a two year period to extend the operating hours to between 05.00 and 23.00 on 7 days a week (EPF/1861/04).  It was hoped that this two year period would be sufficient to permit the company to find alternative premises for basing their lorry fleet. This application was considered by Area Plans subcommittee D on 22 December 2004. The committee refused permission since it was considered that lorry movements late at night and early in the morning would cause disturbance to occupiers of nearby properties and therefore felt that permission could not be granted.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 32.

In the early 1990’s, the Stubbins Nursery, Stubbins Hall, Holyfield was granted permission on the hours of movement for the HGV’s that went to and from their premises. This was limited to the hours of 07:30 and 21:00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and between the hours of 07:30 and 16:00 on Saturdays and Sundays.

Complaints were first received in January 2003 that the hours were not being observed. In March 2004 the operators applied to have this condition removed altogether. This was refused under delegated powers. A subsequent application was submitted in October 2004 seeking permission for a two year period to extend the operating hours. Area Plans Subcommittee D considered this application and refused permission for the extension of hours. However the committee had sympathy with the predicament the operators found themselves in, largely due to the demands of the supermarket chains, about which they could do nothing. The committee asked officers not to proceed immediately with enforcement action but to try to work with the operator to find a solution.

Currently the operator is trying to find alternative sites but this is proving very difficult. He emphasises that he continues to employ over 500 local people plus the future of many small, local nurseries depend on his continued operation. He pleads that he must be able to use his current facilities until they are able to relocate. However, there is no timetable for this at the present time.

Members were asked to consider 4 options and resolve which option they wished to pursue.

            RESOLVED:

To serve an Enforcement Notice seeking compliance and prosecuting if compliance is not achieved within a three month limit.

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