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.

In the absence of the Vice-Chairman, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee invited nominations from the Sub-Committee for the appointment of a Vice-Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Mrs M Sartin be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 1 September 2010 as a correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 1 September 2010 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 P Smith declared a personal interest in agenda items 7 Converted Barn at Shingle Hall, Epping Upland and 8 (3) EPF/1365/10 2 Currance Cottages, Upland Road, Epping by virtue of being a member of the Epping Upland Parish Council.  The Councillor declared that her interests were not prejudicial and indicated that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the items.

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.

The following items have been accepted for inclusion on the agenda by the Chairman:

(i)         EPF/71/10 Tree Preservation Order Grange Court, Waltham Abbey; and

(ii)        EPF/74/10 Tree Preservation Order Honeylands, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey

Under this agenda item, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee had allowed two Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order items to be discussed.

(a)        Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order EPF/71/10 Grange Court, Waltham Abbey, Essex

This was a re-protection order, aimed at protecting trees previously covered by a County order dating from 1953. The new order was based on a consultant’s survey, assessing (from a distance) those trees of most public visual amenity. Several of the trees were modestly sized, pollarded Horse Chestnuts, included for their collective addition to the character of the area. They were visible from the adjacent open space as a boundary feature. A poplar was included in the order, which was also a lapsed pollard, having grown unchecked for 30 years, and was now very large.

The Grounds of Objection/Observations Made

Following the service of this order, observations were received, in respect of four of the seven trees, from the owner of 25 Grange Court. Three of the trees were in his own garden, and one, the Poplar, was next door in No 27. The trees were as follows:

• T2 Black Poplar had grown to a great height through lack of maintenance. Every July the foot long seed floss dropped and covered the vicinity to a depth of a foot. Doors and windows could not be left open due to the airborne fibres. The year 2009 had been particularly bad and prompted an inspection from an Essex County Council Tree Officer who allowed permission for 65% of the crown to be removed. Currently, no work had been carried out, this presented a health and safety issue to persons and property.

• T5 and T6 Horse Chestnut had been pollards for more than 10 years and showed signed of foot decay and Bleeding Canker. They would need felling in the near future for safety reasons.

• T7 Horse Chestnut no longer existed having been felled in late 2009 after inspection by Essex County Council on the grounds that it was severely diseased and therefore exempt from the order.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development Comments:

The comments on the Poplar T2 were aimed at the difficulty in having the tree pruned, rather than objecting to the TPO. The owner of the tree had been granted a recent consent for a 50% reduction, which was hoped to be undertaken shortly. The reduction would help with the nuisance of the seeds, and should resolve the genuine fears in respect of safety.

T7 Horse Chestnut had been confirmed as felled, due to infection by Honey Fungus and Bleeding Canker. It appeared that this was before the current TPO was made, the order therefore did not have any effect in respect of the tree. In respect of T5 and T6, also Horse Chestnut, an inspection had shown that they were indeed affected as described. The importance of the order was therefore only to secure replacement planting. The owner would wish to remove T5 shortly, and this could be done under an exemption, subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

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

The Sub-Committee received a report concerning variation of an Existing Section 106 Agreement – Converted Barn at Shingle Hall, Epping Upland, Essex.

The owner of Shingle Hall requested that the Council modified an existing Section 106 Agreement signed in 1992 as part of a planning permission for the residential conversion of a barn adjacent to Shingle Hall. Under the obligation the applicant covenanted with the planning authority that the barn conversion would be used solely in connection, and as ancillary to, the existing main house on the site. Secondly it should not be sold except as a whole together with the entirety of the application site.

This was a remote site in the countryside within the Metropolitan Green Belt, away from any other residential properties. The application site consisted of a house, converted barn, curtilage buildings, tables, yard as well as horse grazing land. When the planning application was granted in 1992 part of the justification put forward for the barn conversion was that the wife of the applicant, Mr Turner, had multiple sclerosis. She was coping with the support and care of her husband and daughter. It was her daughter and two grand daughters who lived in the converted barn pursuant to the 1992 planning permission. However, Mr Turner had fallen ill and was struggling to support himself and his wife.

The couple’s daughter would inherit Shingle Hall when the couple passed away. However paying the resulting inheritance tax bill would require her to either sell the main house or the converted barn or both. She had lived in the converted barn for 18 years and raised her daughters there and had also established a horse stud at the site. The converted barn was closely linked to the stud, connected to the eastern end of the barn with the stable yard to the rear. Therefore, she did not wish to leave the site being very closely associated with the horse business adjacent to her home. The option of selling the whole site was remote, the other two options were expressively excluded by the planning obligation.

The original proposal of converting the barn to residential accommodation had been regarded by the Council as contrary to Green Belt policy, as it would create a new dwelling there. The obligation was considered necessary to protect the Green Belt by ensuring that an additional dwelling was not formed, but remained ancillary to the main Shingle Hall dwelling.

Over a period of 18 years the Turner family had adhered to the legal obligation. When first approached to remove the legal obligation, officers’ opinion was that it served a useful purpose in protecting the Green Belt from harm. However, since that time, the equine business had begun and developed. Horse keeping was an appropriate Green Belt use which helped maintain its openness and fulfilled many of the objectives for the use of land. For the equestrian business to operate effectively, the daughter of Mr and Mrs Turner needed to be on hand for overseeing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development)  To consider the planning applications 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.