Agenda and minutes

The Chairman made a short address to remind all present that the meeting would be broadcast on the internet and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and outlined the procedures and arrangements adopted by the Council to enable persons to address the Sub-Committee, in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission. The Sub-Committee noted the advice provided for the public and speakers in attendance at Council Planning Sub-Committee meetings.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 April 2008 (attached)

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2008 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to adding that Councillor M Cohen wanted it noted that item 1 had been granted permission due to it’s history and not as a principle.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs J Sutcliffe declared personal interests in agenda item 6 (1) (EPF/0450/08 Roding Valley Recreation Ground, off Roding lane, Buckhurst Hill), and (2) (EPF/0354/08 51 Epping New Road), by virtue of being a member of Buckhurst Hill Parish Council. The Councillor declared that her interests were not prejudicial and indicated that she would stay in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items;

(b)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs A Haigh declared personal interests in agenda item 6 (1) (EPF/0450/08 Roding Valley Recreation Ground, off Roding Lane, Buckhurst Hill) by virtue of being a member of the Buckhurst Hill Residents Association. The Councillor declared that her interests were not prejudicial and indicated that she would stay in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items;

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors P Spencer and D Dodeja, declared personal interests in agenda item 6 (1) (EPF/0450/08 Roding Valley Recreation Ground, off Roding Lane, Buckhurst Hill), by virtue of being members of Buckhurst Hill Parish Council. The Councillors declared that their interests were prejudicial and indicated that they would leave the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item;

(d)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor P Spencer and D Dodeja declared personal interests in agenda item 6 (2) (EPF/00354/08 51 Epping New Road, Buckhurst Hill), by virtue of being members of Buckhurst Hill Parish Council. The Councillors declared that their interests were not prejudicial and indicated that they would stay in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items;

(e)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors R Barrett, Mrs C Pond declared personal interests in agenda items 6 (6) (EPF/0466/08 27 Church lane, Loughton), (8) (EPF/0522/08 34 Ollard’s Grove, Loughton), and (9) (EPF/0568/08 2 Cloverleys, Park Hill, Loughton), by virtue of being members of Loughton Town Council. The Councillors declared that their interests were not prejudicial and indicated that they would stay in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items;

(f)         Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor K Chana declared a personal interest in agenda items 6 (4) (EPF/0447/08 9 Tomswood Road, Chigwell) and (5) (EPF/0520/08 94 Hainault Road, Chigwell), by virtue of being a Chigwell Parish Councillor. The Councillor declared that his interests were not prejudicial and indicated that he would stay in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items;

(g)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors Mrs L Wagland and G Mohindra declared personal interests in agenda items 6 (3) (EPF/0411/08 Limes Farm Community Hall, Limes Avenue, Chigwell), (4) (EPF/0447/08 9 Tomswood Road, Chigwell), and (5) (EPF/0520/08 94 Hainault Road, Chigwell) by virtue of being Chigwell Parish Councillors. The Councillors declared that their interests were not prejudicial and indicated that they would stay in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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 noted that there was no other business for consideration by the Sub-Committee.

(Director 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 the planning applications numbered 1 – 9 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes.

Note:

Councillor Cohen asked that the reason for his voting against the refusal for application 7 (EPF/0470/08 – Beechlands, 42 Alderton Hill, Loughton) be recorded in the minutes under Council Procedure Rule 15.5 – ‘right to require individual vote to be recorded’. The reason being: "that he did not vote against the refusal of the application because he did not agree with the grounds to refuse it, and not because he wanted the application granted."

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) to consider the attached report.

In compliance with the recommendations of the District Auditor, the Sub–Committee received a report advising of the outcome of all successful appeals, particularly those refused contrary to officer recommendation. The purpose was to advise of the consequence of these decisions and inform of cases where costs could be awarded against the Council.

Best Value Performance Indicator was for district councils to aim to have less than 40% of their decisions overturned on appeal. The latest figure for the national average for District Councils is 30.9%.  That BVPI was scrapped but recently replaced by one which records planning appeals only (not advertisement, listed buildings, enforcements, telecommunications or tree related appeals) and where the Council sets its own target – set this year to align with top quartile performance at 25%. In fact in recent years the Council has been more successful than the national average with only 18% in 2003/04, 29% in 2004/05, 22% in 2005/06 and 30% in 2006/07.

For the year 2007/08 as a whole: a total of 132 decisions were received – 120 planning appeals and 12 enforcement appeals. Of the 120 planning appeals 36 were allowed but none of the enforcement appeals – a total of 27.3% of the Council’s decisions being overturned.

For the Best Value Performance Indicator, which only considers appeals against the refusal of planning permission (so does not include advertisement, listed building, enforcement, telecommunications or tree-related appeals, nor appeals against conditions); the performance figure is 29%.

The Sub-committee noted that it was the role of members to look hard at applications and not just to rubber stamp them. Officers could help members by pointing out the adverse points of an application as well as the good ones. Members could help by going as witnesses at appeal hearings to put their point of view across. They also need to look their reasons for refusal and to look at what will or will not  work in terms of Highway use and environmental sustainability, instead of using the term ‘overdevelopment’ constantly. It was suggested that the County’s Highways department be invited to give the Sub-committee a talk on what criteria they use to judge an application. It was also suggested that an officer give a short talk on the current ‘jargon’ words used.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning appeals decisions for October 2007 to March 2008 be noted.

(Director 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 schedules of Planning applications determined by the Director of Planning and Economic Development under delegated authority since the last meeting had been circulated and could be inspected at the Civic Offices.