Agenda and minutes

In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the Democratic Services Officer opened the meeting and requested nominations for the role of Chairman. Following their acceptance by the Committee, a nomination was requested by the Chairman for the role of Vice-Chairman.

Resolved:

(1)        That Councillor S Watson be elected Chairman for the duration of the meeting; and

(2)        That Councillor K Chana be elected Vice-Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2013 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

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

The Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Development (Development Control) presented a report on the threat of special measures and the potential refunding of planning fees.

The Assistant Director reported that the Government had introduced a new policy on 1 October 2013 whereby a local authority had to refund any planning fees if it failed to determine an application within 26 weeks. In addition, those local authorities who had 20% or more of their decisions overturned at appeal, or determined 30% or less of their major applications within the 26 week threshold over a rolling two-year period, would be placed in ‘Special Measures’. This would allow an Applicant to submit a major planning application, and its fee, direct to the Planning Inspectorate for determination.

The Assistant Director highlighted that the time taken to determine major planning applications would need to be closely monitored to ensure that the Council did not lose income unnecessarily. There were potential problems foreseen with planning applications that required the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement, particularly if the delay was being caused by the Applicant. However, an extension of time for the determination of a major planning application could be agreed with the Applicant, and this option would be pursued wherever possible. It was possible that the terms of reference for the District Development Control Committee and the Area Planning Sub-Committees would be reviewed to ensure that the time taken to consider major planning applications could be reduced. A major planning application was defined as a development of 10 or more dwellings or 1,000 square metres of floor space.

The Committee shared the concerns of the Assistant Director and foresaw difficulties if a Section 106 legal agreement had not been signed by the Applicant in time as the Council would then have no option but to refuse the application and rely on a sympathetic hearing by the Planning Inspector at the subsequent appeal. The Council had to ensure that it did not enter special circumstances through poor performance. The Assistant Director agreed that the date of receipt of each planning application could be added to the report on the Sub-Committee agenda, to highlight those applications where a decision could not be delayed any longer, and advised the Sub-Committee that the validation checklist for the necessary paperwork to accompany each planning application had recently been revised. The Sub-Committee was informed that an agreement with the Applicant to extend the time to consider an application could be entered into at any point in the process, and there was a risk that this process could be extended to encompass all planning applications in the future.

Resolved:

(1)        That the new threat of planning fees being returned for planning applications not decided within 26 weeks of being validated be noted;

(2)        That the threat of the Council entering ‘Special Measures’ if major planning applications were not determined in a timely fashion or too many decisions being overturned at Appeal be noted;

(3)        That the need for the Sub-Committee to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Sub-Committee considered a schedule of applications for planning permission.

Resolved:

(1)        That the planning applications numbered 1 – 5 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes.

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

The Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Development (Development Control) presented a report concerning the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at 4 Connaught Hill in Loughton.

The Assistant Director stated that a planning application for rear and side extensions to the property had been submitted, which would necessitate the removal of a prominent Silver Birch tree. This tree was itself a replacement for an Ash tree, which was protected and permission had been obtained to fell. The replacement tree was not automatically protected under the legislation and, although the planning application had subsequently been withdrawn, it was felt that the replacement tree should now be protected.

The Assistant Director reported that two objections had been received from the owner of the property and the architect who had submitted the recent planning application, which covered five separate reasons for objection. The Director of Planning & Economic Development, in consultation with Aboricultural Officers, had responded and refuted each of the five points.

The Assistant Director concluded that, although the planning application had been withdrawn, the tree still required legal protection. If the order was not confirmed then the most likely result was that the tree would be felled, and therefore it was recommended that the order be confirmed without modification.

Resolved:

(1)        That Tree Preservation Order TPO/EPF/22/13 be confirmed without modification.

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

The Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Development (Development Control) presented a report concerning the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at the Gable Lodge in Church Hill, Loughton.

The Assistant Director reminded the Sub-Committee that a Tree Preservation Order had been made at the site to protect three Western Red Cedar trees, seven Lime Pollards, one Red Horse Chestnut and one Cedar in June 2013. A pre-application proposal had been received concerning the development of a new apartment complex at the site, which had placed all of the trees at risk from damage during the construction, and selected trees designated for removal. All of these trees were considered to be of significant landscape importance and high visual amenity, being predominantly positioned near the main road and the junction leading from it.

The Assistant Director reported that an objection to the Order had been received from the owner of the site, BUPA Care Homes, which covered three separate reasons for objection. The Director of Planning & Economic Development, in consultation with Aboricultural Officers, had responded and refuted each of the points raised. Therefore, it was recommended that the Order be confirmed without modification in the interests of public amenity.

When questioned by the Sub-Committee, the Assistant Director acknowledged that these particular trees had only came to the attention of the Council’s Aboricultural Officers once the pre-application proposal had been received. One of the local Ward Members for Loughton St John’s, in whose ward the site was situated, felt that it was important for these trees to be retained at the site due to their visual presence in the street.

Resolved:

(1)        That Tree Preservation Order TPO/EPF/13/13 be confirmed without modification.

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

The Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Development (Development Control) presented a report concerning the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at 71a Stonards Hill, in Loughton.

The Assistant Director stated that a planning application had been submitted for a new dwelling in the rear gardens of 71/71a Stonards Hill, which would necessitate the removal of two Leyland Cypress trees with no opportunity to plant suitable replacements. These trees were the largest in the immediate vicinity, being approximately ten metres in height, were fair specimens and consequently were an important feature of the area. The planning application had been refused for a number of reasons, including the potential loss of the trees.

The Assistant Director reported that objections had been received from the owner of the property and the residents at 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 Alderton Way in Loughton, which covered six separate reasons for objection. The Director of Planning & Economic Development, in consultation with Aboricultural Officers, had responded and refuted each of the six points raised.

The Assistant Director concluded that, although the planning application had been refused, the trees still required legal protection. If the Order was not confirmed then the most likely result would be the trees being felled, with insufficient space being allocated for replanting suitable replacements should any development of the site be approved. Therefore, it was recommended that the Order be confirmed without modification.

The Sub-Committee noted that these trees were considered to be worth preserving, being very prominent in the street scene and that there were other reasons given for refusing the planning application which the Council could adequately defend at the Appeal. The Assistant Director confirmed that if the Appeal was upheld by the Planning Inspector then this would outweigh the Tree Preservation Order.

Resolved:

(1)        That Tree Preservation Order TPO/EPF/11/13 be confirmed without modification.