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. He also informed those present, that this meeting was to be webcast live and would be capable of repeat viewing.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 4 October 2006 as correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 4 October 2006 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to application EPF/1608/06 including the erection of a detached garage in the front of the house.

(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 P Brooks declared a personal interests in agenda items 8 (Variation of Terms of Section 106 agreement in respect of the Cobbins Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme) and 9 (1) (EPF/1720/06 Field North of Cobbins Brook, between Brookmeadow Wood and Fernhall Wood, Upshire, Waltham Abbey).  She 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 J Wyatt declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 (2) (EPF/1639/06 Former Garage Block, Homefield, Waltham Abbey) by virtue of being the local ward councillor.  The Councillor declared that his interests were not prejudicial and indicated that he 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 Stavrou declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 (4) (EPF/1350/06 Land Adj. To 21 Albion Terrace, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey) by virtue of being the local ward 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 item.

(d)            Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Spinks declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 (1) (EPF/1720/06 Field North of Cobbins Brook, between Brookmeadows Wood and Fernhall Wood, Upshire) by virtue of this application backing on to his property.  The Councillor declared that his interests were not prejudicial and indicated that he 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 tree preservation order EPF/02/06 is confirmed.

Background:

Tree Preservation Order EPF/02/06 was made to protect one tree at Barn Cottage, Epping Road, Broadley Common.

The order was served to protect:

T1. Monterey Cypress

The Tree Preservation Order was made to give control over the tree as a result of a request made by the tree owner, who gave notice of her intention to fell the tree. It is a legal requirement to give notice of an intention to carry out works to trees within a conservation area. The notice alerted officers to the threat posed and action was taken accordingly. The order will ensure that a landscape feature stands at this point in the road and allow proper scrutiny of reasons for any future proposals to fell the tree.

The local landscape of this part of Broadley Common is characterized by a ribbon development of residential dwellings with occasional light commercial businesses, fronting onto Epping Road. Individual trees and shrubs generally situated in the residential front garden/driveways provide elements of sporadic greening along this busy route .

T1, is a landmark tree, with striking skyline landscape importance. Individually this tree is possibly the most important landscape feature of this part of Broadley Common. It was clear that, unless the council acted quickly to protect it, this tree would have been lost.

Objection to the Tree Preservation Order :

Two objections to the order have been raised, on the following grounds:

1.                              ‘Barn Cottage’ resident:

‘ … the tree’s root system may be threatening the existence of my property and also that of ‘The Firs’.’ I understand, after a conversation with the owner of ‘The Firs’, that he was advised several years ago, to have the trees removed, when it was established that the roots of the trees were undermining the stability of the foundations of his property.’

‘The tree is very tall and interferes with telephone wires that run through the tree and sways energetically in high winds.’

2.                              ‘The Firs’ resident

The tree is of amenity value but is too close to The Firs and Barn Cottage garage. The size of the tree suggests it is undermining existing footings and services from the tell tale signs visible on Barn Cottage’s garage wall. Over time the tree should be removed with pruning management in the interim.  

Head of Planning Services Comments

The detailed response to the grounds of objections are listed below:

1.                              The Monterey cypress has and continues to damage the front boundary wall by the direct action of the large buttress roots on this light structure. There are technical design solutions available to remedy the immediate problem of wall disruption, without the need to fell the tree.

2.                              There is, at present, no technical evidence provided to confirm that roots from this tree are undermining the stability of the foundations of The Firs.

3.                              The presence of telephone wires within the crown of a tree is not in itself justification to fell a tree of this  ...  view the full agenda text for item 40.

An order was served to protect a Monterey Cypress at the above named premises.

            RESOLVED:

            That the Tree Preservation Order EPF/02/06 be confirmed.

(Head of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

On 14^th September 2005 the Sub-Committee (Area Plans D) agreed to grant planning permission for the construction of flood alleviation scheme (FAS) for Waltham Abbey comprising a new earth flood embankment and creation of flood storage area at Land between Brookmeadow Wood and Fernhall Road, Upshire, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

The applicant had proposed that the Section 106 Agreement does not require the implementation of an approved landscape management plan.  The justification put forward by the applicant was as follows:

a)      The requirement to implement the landscape management plan in the section 106 Agreement would duplicate a condition that would be imposed on the grant of planning permission in any event.  Such a condition is capable of being enforced therefore it is not necessary to repeat its requirements in the Agreement.

b)      Since all landowners affected by it must sign the Section 106 Agreement, this would require landowners who have formally objected to the FAS to be a party to the agreement.  Should they refuse, the scheme could be considerably delayed and this could threaten its implementation.  Protracted negotiations regarding the scheme have taken place with the landowners but progress is very slow.

c)      The amount of land affected by the landscaping scheme that is owned by landowners who object to the FAS is a small proportion of the total land covered by the landscaping scheme, i.e. 1.3 hectares of a total area of 8.7 hectares.  The applicant and the Corporation of London own the remaining land and both have the resources to manage the landscaping.

d)      The landscaping scheme for the development has been designed to minimise maintenance requirements.

The applicant had also requested that the Sub-Committee agree to a minor variation of the overall proposal that involves the erection of a replacement footbridge over the Cobbins Brook that would be situated in the same place as the existing footbridge.  The revised proposal would still include some softening of the adjacent banks of the watercourse.

RESOLVED:

1.            That the Section 106 Agreement not require the implementation of an approved landscape management plan; and

2.            That, details of a revised location of a replacement footbridge over the Cobbins Brook south of the proposed Flood Alleviation Scheme be agreed as a minor amendment to the overall scheme.

(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.