Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 7 May 2014 be agreed.

The Vice-Chairman was absent from the meeting, so the Chairman sought a nomination for Vice-Chairman of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor G Chambers be elected Vice-Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

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

(Director of Governance) To consider the report attached.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order TPO/EPF/07/14 – 117 High Road, Loughton.

The Tree Preservation Order was made following receipt of a planning application for a change of use from a dwelling house to NHS doctor’s surgery, including extensions to the building and creation of a car park in the rear garden. Given its location, the property and trees were considered highly visible to those passing on the High Road and made a significant contribution to the street scene of both the High Road and Meadow Road.

The order protected six pollarded lime trees, two being along the front boundary, the remaining four were on the side boundary adjacent to Meadow Road.

The planning application EPF/0091/14 was refused.

Objections/Representations

The owner of the property raised an objection to the four lime trees (T3-T6) facing Meadow Road. The reasons for the objection were as follows:

(a)  No prior notice of the Council’s intention to make the order was given;

(b)  Essex County Council had refused to provide the owner with a resident parking permit for Meadow Road, as they considered that the property was not connected with Meadow Road. In the justification for the TPO it stated that the trees were an important part of Meadow Road. The owner did not consider it was right that Essex County Council and the District Council, could take different stances according to their requirements;

(c)  The property owner had four cars and because Essex County Council would not provide parking permits they were considering removing T3 allowing for a larger car parking area;

(d)  The owner did not agree that the trees facing on to Meadow Road were “highly visible to those passing on the High Road” nor that they made a “significant contribution to the street scene;” and

(e)  Whilst not an objection, the owner also commented that the trees were regularly pollarded, but due to financial difficulties was unable to have the work undertaken. It was assumed that as they were now protected, EFDC would maintain them.

The Director of Governance commented as follows:

The trees were under a direct threat of being felled as a result of the planning application, although the application was made by a third party who had an interest in purchasing the property. The Local Planning Policy stated that the Council would refuse to grant planning permission for any development which it considered made inadequate provision for the retention of trees. The only way to ensure retention of trees in such a situation was to protect them by a tree preservation Order. Given the location of the trees, they were highly visible within the street scene, appropriate for their setting and had a high amenity value. As such the making of this order was in accordance with Council policy. Taking each of the objections in turn:

(i)            It was not appropriate to give prior notice of the Council’s intent to make a TPO, as this would lead to trees being removed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

(Director of Governance) To consider the report attached.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order TPO/EPF/27/13 77 York Hill, Loughton.

TPO/EPF/27/13 was made on 13 December 2013 to protect a Norway Spruce, the tree had high visual amenity in the York Hill Conservation Area.

A notice was submitted to remove the tree due to its dangerous size and shading impacts on neighbouring properties. The tree had been assessed for its visual contribution, life expectancy, suitability and importance of location. The tree’s preservation guaranteed replacement in the event of future applications to fell it being considered acceptable.

Objection and Representations to the Tree Preservation Order.

There had been three objections to the order:

(a)  77 York Hill. The tree owner stated that the tree was a Christmas tree, planted 40 years ago, and had grown beyond all expectation. Its quick growth blocked out light, dropped debris over a neighbouring garden and looked menacing in high winds. A replacement could be planted in a better place, further from houses;

(b)  79 York Hill. The tree had doubled in size during the last 7 years. The tree was very close to the property and had dropped many small branches recently. It was considered dangerous, a replacement might be planted a little further away from the property but it was felt most strongly that this tree should be taken down at the earliest opportunity; and

(c)  75 York Hill. When planted, it was never envisaged that it would have grown to such a height. It should have been planted at the bottom of the garden. The tree was considered dangerous, it bent back and forth to a frightening degree.

Head of Planning Services’ Comments

This was a healthy and well shaped attractive tree, standing some 12 m tall. It stood centrally and in open view between two properties. It was clearly visible over the houses from the lower and upper sections of York Hill but was also glimpsed from Queens Road. The tree had a good life expectancy of approximately 40 years and had considerable capacity for further growth and so for a corresponding increase in its wider visual amenity.

However, that potential for further growth was likely to lead to it outgrowing its location. The species meant that it would not be likely to respond well to crown reduction.

Response to objections, summarised under specific headings:

(i)    The current size of the tree and problems with shade and debris;

(ii)   The problems cited were not currently serious in relation to the owner’s property. The tree’s position, 10 m from the rear of the house, was acceptable at the present time; and

(iii)  The building closest to the tree was a recent extension at 79 York Hill, which suffered light loss and some debris from the tree. While it was not contested that some problems were experienced, it was considered that any such problems must be weighed against the tree’s prominence.

Officers stated that the tree was not highly dangerous, the tree’s narrow form was likely to bend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(Director of Governance)  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 – 16 be determined as set out in the attached schedule to these minutes.

(Director of Governance)  To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning Appeal Decisions 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014.

In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report advised the decision making committees of the results of all successful, allowed appeals. The purpose being to inform the committees 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 made against the Council.

Over the six month period between 1 October 2013 and 31 March 2014, the Council received 48 decisions on appeals (46 planning related and 2 enforcement related).

Key Performance Indicator (KPI54) measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions and KPI55 measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversal of officer recommendations. Out of a total of 46 planning related appeals, 18 were allowed (37%). Broken down further KPI54 performance was 4 out of 23 allowed (17%) and KPI55 performance was 13 out of 22 (59%).

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 committee officer could give a good indication of some success at defending the decision.

During this period, there was no award of costs made against the Council.

Members were made aware of recent appeal changes allowing Planning Inspectors to award costs against a party that had behaved unreasnobly even if neither the Council or the appellant had applied for costs.

RESOLVED:

That the Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014 be noted.

(Director of Governance) 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 Governance under delegated authority since the last meeting had been circulated and could be inspected at the Civic Offices.