Agenda and minutes

To elect a chairman for the meeting.

Resolved:

That Councillor Sandler be appointed Chairman for this and future meetings.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

            Resolved:

That the notes of the meeting held on 2 August 2010 be agreed as a correct record.

1.         The Director of Planning & Economic Development has been to several meetings of the above to observe, and be seen to be taking an interest in these meetings, as well as those which he more generally attends.

2.         I thought it useful to share my key observations, because a feature of previous “Chairs “ Meetings has been to reflect on the meetings to see what improvements can be made.

3.         The key points are as follows:

Display of plans, elevations, aerial and other photographs.

4.         There is a very considerable contrast to when I recall being a lead officer at these meetings; then the officer stood with a set of plans attempting to display them on the rather less than clear main screen in the Council Chamber.

5.         Now there are a series of PowerPoint presentation slides with clear plans, titles and which include elevations, plans aerial and other photographs; these are used to give very high quality presentation by the Officers, and assist members in their deliberations. These do require quite an effort to be assembled, but that effort is plainly worthwhile.

6.         What was particularly noticeable is that even when speakers are making points which are in opposition to the views of officers. That the plan or photograph is displayed relating to the speaker’s point. This is a worthy professional arrangement. It would not necessarily be detected from the webcast or the minutes of the meeting; it is only seen by those present.

Quality of presentations by Officers

7.         I witnessed quite a number of staff from the Directorate giving presentations, which were all given professionally. There are only minor points of improvement for a few individuals.

8.         There is a view in some quarters that Essex is flat, when the topography of some sites is quite complex, and subtle level differences can have quite an impact upon the Member assessment.  If someone is describing the site as being on a steep incline that should be clear from the plans and/or the report. Presentation methods will be reviewed with this objective in mind.

Quality of reports

9.         For the most part the quality of reports, and the depth of the information provided appeared to be pitched at the right level.  Areas for improvement include;

Ø            One item had made the agenda of an area Committee which should have gone straight to the District Development Committee.

Ø            One item was the unusual reporting of a Certificate of Lawful Development application to the Committee for determination; this was deferred for a lawyer to be present; in future such cases, the need for the lawyer to be present needs to be factored in.

Ø            There are more minor points about whether all necessary conditions have made it to the agenda.

Venues

10.       Whilst I understand the benefits of having the largest Area Committee having its meeting within its local area, there are clearly some considerable logistical issues in getting all the necessary staff and equipment to the school. I sat in  ...  view the full agenda text for item 3.

A report by the Director of Planning and Economic Development was received. The improvements to the display of plans and photographs at meetings including the proposal by officers to link to their planning records in meetings for research purposes. This couldn’t be achieved at the Area Plans South meeting due to its location. It was considered that it would be appropriate to the Planning Scrutiny Panel to review and report further on Area Plans South and savings potential.

Members also requested further guidance to be published in the Members Bulletin on declarations of Interests made at meetings. Members also requested that the Planning Protocol be reviewed in an attempt to make the declaration process easier with potential for standard wording to be used.

Members expressed the an opinion that the Council were still not securing appropriate sums under Section 106 Agreements. The Assistant Director pointed out that sums for S106 agreements had to be evidence based or would fail at any appeal situation. Pre-application discussions with members helped. It was agreed that Officers would prepare a report for the Planning Scrutiny Panel on S106 sums agreed and subsequently received and to allow a fuller discussion on what could be included in such agreements.

Agreed:

(1)        That a review report on Area Plans South be prepared for the Planning Scrutiny Panel;

(2)        That guidance be published in the Members Bulletin on declarations of Interests made at meetings;

(3)        That the Planning Protocol be reviewed in an attempt to make the declaration process easier; and

(4)        That the Director of Planning and Economic Development report to the Planning Scrutiny Panel on Section 106 Agreements.

It was noted that an issue had been discussed at Area Plans South where there had been confusion about how applicants perceived officers views on applications. Planning Officers had been reminded to tell applicants when decisions would be subject to member decision. It was, however, a matter of applicants perception which members were asked to bear in mind when comments about such discussion were made by applicants at meetings.

Officers have provided this training recently at two of the Area Plans sub-Committees and the intention is for a presentation at South when there is a shorter agenda of planning applications. The issue was briefly discussed at Local Council Liaison Committee where confirmation was sought as to how local council’s should respond to certificate of Lawful development applications. A presentation of permitted development has also taken place in the last year at a few of the parish council’s. Officers therefore consider this matter has now be well aired and explained.

It was noted that all three Area Subcommittees had received training on PD and CLD matters. It was agreed that these items should form part of the Introduction to Planning training course. Additionally it was agreed that the Planning Section of the Bulletin be used to highlight CLD applications and that officers would look at website pages to try to signpost advice on these matters better for both members and the public.

Agreed:

N Richardson to consider

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To discuss the implications of a recent Standards Committee complaint:

(1)               The need for the Chairmen of all Committees etc, but particularly Development Control Committee/Sub-Committee Chairmen in view of the need for interaction with the public, to have attended training in the Chairing of Meetings and to be mindful of the fact that some members of the public will not be familiar with the proceedings of a meeting so that full explanations should be given of the process at each stage and a clear statement should be given at the end about the decision reached.

(2)         The need for a consistent approach to the circulation of documents and photographs at a meeting by applicants and objectors – it appears that some Chairmen are more flexible than others and this has confused members of the public about what may be allowed.

A recent Standards Committee complaint had been made relating to a planning meeting. The Review Subcommittee had been asked to look at the complaint and had dismissed it but had considered that there were some practical improvements that could be made to the meetings.

The meeting agreed proposals for Chairing of Meeting training for members being included in this years Training Prospectus and for Chairman to summarise decisions taken at the end of each item for the benefit of those present.

They decided that Chairman should retain discretion to admit photographs at meetings as an exception if they felt they would aid members deliberations. No written material would be admitted at meetings and officers were instructed to tell the public not to attempt to submit documents at meetings.

This concerns recent planning applications to rebuild individual bungalows, primarily in Theydon Bois, which it is claimed are required, particularly by elderly persons.

There is no policy statement, either at local or national level that supports the contention that bungalows are required to meet the needs of elderly people.  Planning policy H9A of the Local Plan and Alterations does address the needs of elderly people by requiring that a proportion of homes are constructed in accordance with the lifetime homes standards of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.  The policy though is only applicable to developments providing 10 or new homes. No housing needs survey for the locality demonstrates a need for bungalows as opposed to 2 or greater storey houses. The last Housing Needs Survey was carried out in 2003 and does not distinguish between need for a particular house type and an aspiration to live in a particular house type.  Moreover, it does not look at Theydon Bois separately from any other area of the District so it is of no assistance in justifying a reason for refusal of planning permission. The most recent evidence of housing need in the locality is the “London Commuter Belt (East)/M11 Sub-Region Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2008”.  Since that examines need at a sub-regional level it is of no evidential value when considering need within the much smaller locality of Theydon Bois.

The Planning Directorates Forward Planning Team has clearly advised Officers that there is no evidence base upon which to gauge the need for bungalows anywhere in the District or in the District as a whole. Policy H4A – Dwelling Mix states that the council may refuse where development will adversely affect the range and mix of dwellings available.  In order to defend decisions to refuse planning permission for development that would result in the loss of a bungalow on the basis of a failure to comply with policy H4A, it would be necessary to have evidence of need for bungalows. 

Even if such need was demonstrated, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would contribute to any harmful loss of bungalows.  Planning records show that monitoring this issue since 1 April 2005, planning permission has been given to erect 5 bungalows in Theydon Bois.  During the same period planning permission has been given for developments that result in the loss of 10 bungalows, resulting in a net loss of 5 bungalows in Theydon Bois.  During the same period, Building Control records show only 3 bungalows were actually lost.  There is no record of the total amount of bungalows in the locality at present or on 1 April 2005.  Nevertheless, as a proportion of the total number of houses in Theydon Bois, the net loss of between 3 and 5 bungalows is small. Having regard to the actual absence of evidence of need for bungalows together with the absence of any policy supporting their retention, a refusal of planning permission on this ground is very unlikely to be supported on appeal.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 7.

The Group noted that this item had come forward at the last meeting due to concerns over recent planning applications to rebuild individual bungalows, primarily in Theydon Bois, which it was claimed are required, particularly by elderly persons. 

It was noted that there was no policy statement, either at local or national level that supported the contention that bungalows are required to meet the needs of elderly people.

The Planning Directorates Forward Planning Team had clearly advised Officers that there was no evidence base upon which to gauge the need for bungalows anywhere in the District or in the District as a whole.

Even if such need was demonstrated, there was no evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would contribute to any harmful loss of bungalows.  Planning records showed that monitoring this issue since 1 April 2005, planning permission had been given to erect 5 bungalows in Theydon Bois.  During the same period planning permission has been given for developments that resulted in the loss of 10 bungalows, resulting in a net loss of 5 bungalows in Theydon Bois.  During the same period, Building Control records show only 3 bungalows were actually lost.

In summary, and as evidenced in a recent case, the initial case to defend a reason for refusal on the loss of a bungalow was unlikely to be supported and open to a claim for costs against the council should an appeal be lodged. 

The Planning Localism Bill was due to be issued on 20 November 2010 and Officers will verbally brief Members on this at the meeting.

The Group noted that the Localism Bill had recently had its 10^th sitting in the Commons. This Bill would bring forward a number of measures which would effect planning including Neighbourhood Development Plans and community right to build. The Group had before them a report that had been discussed at the LDF Cabinet Committee on 7 February 2011. It was considered that such Neighbourhood Plans could require significant officer resources to produce.

Members were invited to consider any views that they had on the document and forward them to the Director of Planning in advance of the next Planning Scrutiny Panel meeting on 3 March 2011.

Councillor Collins outlined issues around development in the area of Harlow and surrounding areas. Any new homes built on Epping Forest District sites would need careful consideration. The Government had announced a New Homes Bonus for such new developments.

Councillor Collins also reported that she had attended a LEP meeting at Dartford. It was apparent that funding under the LEP would require bids rather than being apportioned by area. Councillor Collins would keep members informed of progress on this matter.

Occasionally, planning applications have been deferred to seek further clarification, consultation or even a Member site-visit, before being reported back to a subsequent meeting. This inevitably means that the planning application does not achieve a timely decision and impacts therefore on annual performance targets.

Officer recommendations overturned by Members at planning committees also impact on performance target LPI 45 (appeals). There are potential cost implications if any of the reasons cannot be adequately defended and judged by the Inspector, deciding the appeal, to be unreasonable. With this in mind, it should be recognised that the performance is a target not only for officers but also for Members.    

The Group noted that occasionally, planning applications were deferred to seek further clarification, consultation or even a Member site-visit, before being reported back to a subsequent meeting. This meant that the planning application did not achieve a timely decision and impacted on annual performance targets.

Additionally, officer recommendations overturned by Members at planning committees also impacted on performance target LPI 45 (appeals). The Group acknowledged that the performance was a target not only for officers but also for Members.    

Members to raise any other matter of business

(a)        Street Scene Plans

Councillor Sandler indicated that some applications seen at Chigwell Parish Council still did not have street scene plans. This made if difficult for members to determine the impact of proposals. N Richardson indicated that such plans were asked for when proposals related to new house building or two storey extensions. Officers undertook to review procedures to ensure that plans were available.

Action:  N Richardson

(b)        Planning Appeals

The Group discussed recent Planning Appeals. It was considered that it would be a good idea that Officers met with Local Council’s in advance of Appeals to outline what issues could form part of planning arguments and to take a local prospective. This procedure was already carried out for local District Members.

Members also asked for early notification of Appeals through the Members Bulletin.

Action:  N Richardson

(c)        Calendar of Meetings – Effect on Performance

N Richardson reported that the Council would shortly be considering its Calendar of Meetings for the period May 2011 to May 2012. This would include proposals for changing the current three week planning cycle of Subcommittee meeting to four weeks. The Group noted that whilst the effect on minor applications was slight, the likely change for major applications (which were less in number) was more significant. Councillor Stavrou reported that applicants for larger schemes would rather have a considered application process rather than one that met the current performance timescale. It was agreed that if the Director of Planning brought forward a report to the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Committee about these targets members would give the current targets more consideration.

Action: J Preston

(d)        Frequency of meetings

It was agreed that future meetings would be business driven and aimed at six monthly intervals.