Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast;

2.         Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking; and

3.         the Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be filmed live for subsequent uploading to the Internet and will be capable of repeated viewing.

If you are seated in the public seating area it is possible that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast although Officers will try and avoid this.

This may infringe your human and data protection rights and if you have any concerns about this you should speak to the Webcasting Officer.”

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.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee.

It was found that only the first section of the minutes from 2 November 2011 had been attached to the current agenda, the decision section of the minutes had been omitted. Members requested that the sub-committee minutes, in its entirety, of the 2 November meeting, should be attached to the forthcoming agenda for consideration:

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2011 be attached in its entirety to the sub-committee agenda of 4 January 2012.

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

(a)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Conduct, Councillor D Wixley declared personal interests in the following items of the agenda by virtue of being the Tree Warden. The Councillor had determined that his interests were not prejudicial and that he would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

• TPO/EPF/11/11 Emmaus Way;
• EPF/2207/11 5 Stradbroke Park, Tomswood Road, Chigwell;
• EPF/0568/11 Land to the south of Roding Lane, Buckhurst Hill; and
• EPF/0567/11 Land on south side of Roding Lane, opposite junction with Rous Road and adjoining Buckhurst Hill Football Club, Buckhurst Hill

(b)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors K Chana, J Knapman, G Mohindra and B Sandler declared personal interests in the following items of the agenda by virtue of being members of Chigwell Parish Council. The Councillors had determined that their interests were not prejudicial and that they would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

• EPF/2207/11 5 Stradbroke Park, Tomswood Road, Ongar;
• EPF/1901/11 23 Tomswood Road, Chigwell; and
• EPF/1908/11 40 Dickens Rise, Chigwell

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor G Mohindra declared a personal interest in the following items of the agenda by virtue of knowing one of the objectors, a District Councillor. The Councillor had determined that his interests were not prejudicial and that he would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

• EPF/0568/11 Land to the south of Roding Lane, Buckhurst Hill; and
• EPF/0567/11 Land on south side of Roding Lane, opposite junction with Rous Road and adjoining Buckhurst Hill Football Club, Buckhurst Hill

(d)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member’s Conduct, Councillor Mrs P Richardson declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being a member of Loughton Town Council. The Councillor had determined that her interests were not prejudicial and that she would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

• EPF/1876/11 9 Staples Road, Loughton

(e)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs J Sutcliffe declared a personal interest in the following items of the agenda by virtue of being a member of the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England and knowing one of the objectors. The Councillor had determined that her interests were not prejudicial and that she would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting thereon:

• EPF/0568/11 Land to the south of Roding Lane, Buckhurst Hill; and
• EPF/0567/11 Land on south side of Roding Lane, opposite junction with Rous Road and adjoining Buckhurst Hill Football Club, Buckhurst Hill

(f)         Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor P Spencer declared a personal interest in the following items of the agenda by virtue of knowing two speakers. The Councillor had determined that his interests were not prejudicial and that he would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the applications and voting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

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.

There was no other business for consideration at the meeting.

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

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order TPO/EPF/11/11 Emmaus Way, Chigwell.

The Tree preservation Order TPO/EPF/11/11 was sealed on 22 March 2011. It was a re-protection order to replace TPO/CHI/02/71 which was an area TPO and was less helpful to residents who were unaware of which trees were protected. It was also harder to enforce as the trees were not plotted or recorded individually.

The order protected 21 trees, mostly Oaks, all specified individually. It was a strategically important area of large, old trees, originally part of the convent grounds, developed in the 1970s. the original TPO stayed in place until such tiem as this replacement was confirmed.

An objection had been received to the confirmation of the order in respect of one tree only, T8, from the owners of 1 Emmaus Way in respect of an Oak in the neighbouring garden 4 St. Mary’s Way. Their objection was as follows:

(a)        The close proximity to properties;

(b)        That it had outgrown its surroundings;

(c)        That it was only a matter of time until it became dangerous; and

(d)        A section of the crown overhung the land of 1 Emmaus Way was leading to serious problems, particularly bird droppings, pollen, debris and falling leaves in autumn. This was an issue because the most affected area was the only dedicated car garage.

The objector had stated that he had no desire to have the tree felled, but wanted the comfort that it could be dealt with at any time, without the need for application.

Specific comments were as follows:

(i)         The relationship to adjacent properties should not be unacceptable, subject to minor pruning, for which consent could be granted;

(ii)        It was a large tree in a suburban setting, but its size was related to its local importance. The owner’s garden was of a good size, and the location was not inherently unsuitable;

(iii)       There was no reason to believe that the tree was likely to become dangerous, if this was the case it could be dealt with urgently; and

(iv)       The problems were recognised, but needed balancing against the local importance of the tree as part of the landscape. This could be minimised although not eliminated by pruning.

RESOLVED:

That the Tree preservation Order TPO/EPF/11/11 be confirmed without modification.

(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 – 7 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes.

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

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions April 2011 to September 2011.

In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, this report advised the decision making committees of the results of all successful appeals, particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation. The purpose being to inform the members of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and, in cases where the refusal was found unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs may be made against the Council.

In recent years the Council’s performance had been 18% in 2003/04, 29% in 2004/05, 22% in 2005/06, 30% in 2006/07, 29% in 2007/08, 40.3% for 2008/09, 30.9% in 2009/10 and 36.6% in 2010/11.

Over the six month period between April 2011 and September 2011, the Council received 50 decisions on appeals. Of these 17 were allowed (34%). For KPI54 and KPI55 which only considered appeals against the refusal of planning related permission, the 6 month performance figure was 30% allowed.

Of the 13 planning appeals that arose from decisions of the committees to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6 month period, 6 were allowed and 7 dismissed, 46.15% of appeals resulting from committee reversals were therefore not allowed on appeal.

The committees were urged to continue to heed the advice that when considering setting aside the officer’s recommendation it should only be in cases where members were certain that they were acting in the wider public interest and where the planning officer could give a good indication of some success at defending the decision. This was now highlighted as a separate performance target (KPI55) and therefore came under more scrutiny. However, the performance (46.15%) was being achieved in that the target of 50% was not being exceeded.

In respect of KPI54, of the 27 planning application decisions made by the Director of Planning and Economic Development under delegated powers or recommended to the committee for refusal, 6 were allowed (22.22%), slightly in excess of the target of 20%. Out of 9 enforcement notice appeals decided, 4 were allowed and one part allowed/part dismissed. During this period there were three successful finalised award of costs made against the Council.

Whilst performance in defending appeals had improved, particularly in respect of committee reversals, members were reminded that in refusing planning permission justified reasons were needed in each case. If members were to disagree with submitted evidence, it needed substantiality before a decision on the planning application was made.

RESOLVED:

That the report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions April 2011 to September 2011 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.

(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 Sub-Committee may be inspected in the Member’s Room or at the Planning and Economic Development Information Desk at the Civic Offices, Epping.

Exclusion: To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) or are confidential under Section 100(A)(2):

The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, requires the Council to consider whether maintaining the exemption listed above outweighs the potential public interest in disclosing the information. Any member who considers that this test should be applied to any currently exempted matter on this agenda should contact the proper officer at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Confidential Items Commencement: Paragraph 9 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require:

(1)        All business of the Council requiring to be transacted in the presence of the press and public to be completed by 10.00 p.m. at the latest.

(2)        At the time appointed under (1) above, the Chairman shall permit the completion of debate on any item still under consideration, and at his or her discretion, any other remaining business whereupon the Council shall proceed to exclude the public and press.

(3)        Any public business remaining to be dealt with shall be deferred until after the completion of the private part of the meeting, including items submitted for report rather than decision.

Background Papers:  Paragraph 8 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)            disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)        have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report and does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information (as defined in Rule 10) and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

Inspection of background papers may be arranged by contacting the officer responsible for the item.

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.