Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet and will be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available for those that request it.

If you are seated in the lower public seating area it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast.

This may infringe your human and data protection rights and if you wish to avoid this you should move to the upper public gallery”

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 Sub-Committee noted the Council’s Protocol for Webcasting of Council and Other Meetings.

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and outlined the procedures and arrangements agreed by the Council, to enable persons to address the Sub-Committee in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 11 November 2009.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 11 November 2009 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(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 A Cooper declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the Ward Member. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not prejudicial and she would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

• EPF/1414/09 Hosanna Lodge, Sedge Green, Roydon
• EPF/1622/09 Nazeing Glass Works Ltd, Nazeing New Road, Nazeing

(b)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors Ms S Stavrou and Mrs M Sartin declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being Council Representatives of Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. The Councillors had determined that their interest was not prejudicial and they would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

• EPF/1414/09 Hosanna Lodge, Sedge Green, Roydon

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors B Pryor, J Collier, Mrs P Brookes and A Clark declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being a member of the Waltham Abbey Town Council. The Councillors had determined that their interest was not prejudicial and they would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

• EPF/1710/09 Nyumba Nzuri, Sewardstone Road

(d)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors Ms S Stavrou and A Clarke declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being a Ward Member. The Councillors had determined that their interest was not prejudicial and they would stay in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

• EPF/1710/09 Nyumba Nzuri, Sewardstone Road

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

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report concerning the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order on the field boundary of the land adjacent to 176 Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey. Tree Preservation Order EPF/31/09 had been made to protect four oak trees adjacent to Honey Lane which are mature trees of high visual public amenity value and protects a group of 3 oaks, which are on the field boundary that runs perpendicular to Honey Lane and provide an important group feature visible from the road.

An objection was received by the Arboriculture consultants acting on behalf of Scottish Widows who own the group of three oaks. The objections were answered as follows:

1. The reasons for making the Tree Preservation Order had not been explained. - The Government advice about the creation and serving of Tree Preservation Orders does not provide a rigid framework to assess trees for inclusion within an Order. It states that the amenity value of the trees should be taken into account in the form of their visibility, individual or group impact, and wider impact.

2. The suitability of the vegetation to be retained, in respect of T2 and 2 oaks within G1. - T2 is a Turkey oak which is adjacent to T3 and English oak. The objection in relation to this tree is that the Turkey oak is a non native introduced species and should not therefore be included within the Order. Government advice does not specify which species should or should not be included within an Order.

The strategic Order being made would ensure the long term protection of these trees. Whilst it has been acknowledged that the trees within Group 1 have defects, by making the Order it would ensure that should any tree felling be required. There would be replacement planting and a robust tree boundary along the side of the field would be retained. Therefore it would be recommended that the Order was confirmed without modification.

RESOLVED:

That the Tree Preservation Order EPF/31/09 be confirmed without modification.

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 reported that there was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting.

(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, Planning applications numbered 1 – 3 be determined as set out in the annex to these minutes.

(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 details of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning Economic Development under delegated authority since the last meeting had been circulated to all members and were available for inspection at the Civic Offices.

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

The Sub-committee considered the report on probity in planning on appeal decisions between April 2009 and September 2009. The Sub-committee noted that the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) for District Councils was to aim to have less than 40% of their decisions overturned on appeal. The latest figure for the national average for District Councils was 30.9%. This had been scrapped and the Council had created a Local Performance Indicator with a target of 25% of allowed decisions. In recent years the Council had been more successful than the national average with only 18% in 2003/04; 29% in 2004/05; 22% in 2005/06; 30% in 2006/07 and 29% in 2007/08. However, for 2008/09 a total of 40.3% of the Council’s decisions were overturned.

Over a six month period between April 2009 and September 2009, the Council received 49 decisions on appeal, 46 of which were planning and related appeals and 3 were enforcement related. Of these 14 were allowed (28.6%). The proportion of the 46 appeals that arose from decisions of the committee to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6-month period was 13% and of the 6 decisions that this percentage represents, the Council was not successful in sustaining the committee’s objection in any of them. During this period, there were no awarded costs made for or against the Council.

The Council’s performance for this 6 month period has improved on last year, but is still marginally over the threshold target. Because of the economic downturn, there have been fewer appeals submitted this year compared with last (80 by this stage last year).

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Appeals Decision be noted.