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 23 November 2005 as correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 November 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 Mrs D Borton declared personal interest in agenda item 7 (4) (EPF/1685/05 Winstone Farm, Hoe Lane, Nazeing). She declared that her interest was  prejudicial as the application was a relatively close neighbour and indicated that she would leave the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items. She also indicated that she had a non-prejudicial interest in this application by virtue of being a member of Nazeing Parish Council.

(b)            Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs D Borton declared a personal interest in agenda item 7(8) (EPF/1882/05 1 Tatsfield Houses, St Leonards Road, Nazeing), by virtue of being a member of Nazeing Parish Council.  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 item.

(c)            Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Ms S –A Stavrou declared a personal interest in agenda item 7(7) (EPF/1801/05 Land Adj. 21 Albion Terrace, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey), by virtue of being a member of Waltham Abbey Town Council.  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 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.

Recommendation:

That the committee notes the outcomes of the appeals.

Background

6.1  (Head of Planning Services) In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, 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.

6.2       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%.  (That BVPI was scrapped but recently replaced by one where the Council sets its own target – set this year at 25%.)   In fact in recent years the Council has been more successful than the national average with only 31% overturned in 1999/00, 25% in 2000/01, 24% in 2001/02, 27% in 2002/03, 18% in 2003/04 and 29% in 2004/05.

Performance

6.3              Over the six-month period between April and Sept 2005, the Council received 61 decisions on appeals – 54 planning appeals and 7 enforcement appeals.  Of the 54 planning appeals, 10 were allowed (19%) and of the 7 enforcement appeals, 2.5 were allowed  – a combined total of 20% of the Council’s decisions overturned.

Planning Appeals

6.4              Of those 10 planning appeals allowed, 2 were allowed following decisions by committee to refuse contrary to officer’s recommendation.  Those 2 were:

EPF/2041/04 – Two storey extensions at 67, Tycehurst Hill, Loughton (Area Committee A 02/02/05)

EPF/2398/04 – Erection of 3 cottages at 109, Lindsey Street, Epping (Area Committee B 09/03/05)

6.5              To complete the picture, officers were successful in sustaining a committee decision to refuse, when officers had recommended granting permission, in two cases – nos.16 and 52 on the attached list.

Costs

6.6              Costs were awarded in just 1 appeal.  The enforcement appeal regarding the siting of a mobile home at Breach Barns Caravan Park introduced a number of issues that the Inspector considered were not entirely relevant to the case and which took up Inquiry time unnecessarily.  He made an award of costs against the Council amounting to 2 hours of inquiry attendance and preparation time in favour of the appellants.  However, he also ordered the appellants to pay to the Council the costs of 2 hours inquiry time, together with the cost of preparing evidence on affordable housing; and to pay to the Corporation of London their costs for 2 hours of their attendance time.

Conclusions

6.7              The Council’s performance for this 6-month period was an improvement on last year and consistent with the previous year’s exceptional performance and has once again exceeded the BVPI and the national average.  

6.8       The decisions are listed in the Members Bulletin from time to time but a full list of decisions over this six-month period appears below.

Appeal Decisions April to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 51.

The Sub-Committee, in compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, received a report detailing all successful appeals, 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 April and September 2005, the Council received 61 decisions on appeals – 54 planning appeals and 7 enforcement appeals. Of the 54 planning appeals, 10 were allowed (19%) and of the 7 enforcement appeals, 2.5 were allowed – a combined total of 20% of the Council’s decisions overturned.

The Council’s performance for this 6-month period was an improvement on last year and consistent with the previous year’s exceptional performance and has once again exceeded the BVPI and the national average.

            RESOLVED:

That the outcomes of the planning appeals, particularly those with cost awards 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, Planning applications numbered 1 – 9 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.