Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2013 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(1)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Members Conduct, Councillor James Hart declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 8(2) (EPF/2234/13, 30 Albion Park, Loughton) of the agenda by virtue of knowing applicant. The Councillor indicated that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of the item.

(2)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Members Conduct, Councillor H Ulkun declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 7(a) (TPO/EPF/60/10, Buckhurst Hill Baptist Church, Palmerston Road) of the agenda by having previously worked with the architects. The Councillor indicated that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of the item.

(3)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Members Conduct, Councillors Mohindra, Wagland, Chana, Angold-Stephens, Mann, Markham, Watson, Lion and James Hart declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 8(10) (EPF/2009/13, Land Adjacent to 20 Ollards Grove, Loughton) by virtue of the objector being an ex-district Councillor. The Councillors had determined that their interests were non-pecuniary and they would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon.

(4)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Members Conduct, Councillor K Angold Stephens declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 8(9) (EPF/1928/13, Unit 30 Oakwood Hill Industrial Estate, Loughton) of the agenda by virtue of being a member of Loughton Residents Association who had made representations. The Councillor indicated that he would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item.

(5)          Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Members Conduct, Councillor H Mann declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 8(5) (EPF/1585/13 Green Owl Café, 44 Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill) of the agenda by virtue of having used the café in the past. The Councillor indicated that he would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item.

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 Landscape Officer and Arboriculturist, C Neilan, noted that the plan for the Tree preservation TPO/EPF/12/13 had been incorrectly located. In both cases the circles denoting the trees’ locations of T1 and T2 had been drawn one garden to the east of their correct location.

RESOLVED:

That tree Preservation Order TPO/EPF/12/13 be confirmed, subject to a corrected plan.

To consider the attached report.

The Landscape Officer and Arboriculturist, C Neilan, noted that tree preservation order TPO/EPF/60/10 protected 2 hollies, an Oak and a Birch on the northern boundary of the Buckhurst Hill Baptist Church, Palmerston Road, Buckhurst Hill.

A revised planning application for alterations and extensions to the church building (EPF/1511/10), showing retention of the 4 trees, was approved under delegated powers, subject to conditions including tree protection and landscaping. 

Work had commenced and excavations had now revealed that the building as agreed was incompatible with the safe retention of the Birch. 

The architect for the church had requested that the LPA agree that the Birch may be felled, subject to a comprehensive landscape scheme for the frontage. All site works had now ceased until a way forward has been properly agreed.

The Sub-committee agreed to condition the resubmission of details of the tree protection order to officers.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the request from the church that agreement be given to the felling of T2 , Birch, subject of TPO/EPF/60/10 be agreed; and

(2)          To require a resubmission of details under the tree protection and landscape conditions applying to EPF/1511/10, covering its felling and replacement for approval under delegated powers.

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

            RESOLVED:

            That the planning applications numbered 1 – 10 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report on the appeal decisions made during the six-month period 1 April 2013 and 30 September 2013.

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

In recent years the Council 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, 36.6% in 2010/11, 28.8% in 2011/12 and 27.7% in 2012/13. 

Since 2011/12, there have been two local indicators, one of which measures all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (KPI 55) and the other which measures the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (KPI 54).  

Over the six-month period between 1 April 2013 and 30 September 2013, the Council received 37 decisions on appeals (35 of which were planning related appeals, the other 2 were enforcement related).

KPI 54 and 55 measure planning application decisions and in total, out of this 35, 14 were allowed (40%). Broken down further, KPI 54 performance was 4 out of 20 allowed (20%) and KPI 55 performance was 10 out of 15 (66.67%).

Out of the 15 planning appeals that arose from decisions of the three committees to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6-month period, the Council was not successful in sustaining the committee’s objection in 10 cases.

Members attention was brought to the fact recent appeal changes allows Planning Inspectors to award costs against a party that has behaved unreasonably even if neither the Council or the appellant had applied for costs. 

Whilst performance in defending appeals has improved during the last couple of years, Members were reminded that in refusing planning permission there needed to be justified reasons that in each case must be relevant, necessary, but also sound and defendable so as to avoid paying costs.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Appeal Decisions for 1 April to 30 September 2013 be noted.

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.