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 22 September 2010 as a correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 22 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 Members Code of Conduct, Councillors J Wyatt and R Bassett declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being Deputy Members of the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority. The Councillors declared that their interests were not prejudicial and indicated that they would remain in the meeting for the duration of the discussion on the item and voting thereon:

• EPF/0849/10 Holmsfield Nursery, Meadgate Road, Nazeing

(b)        Pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct, Councillors Mrs M Sartin, Ms S Stavrou and Mrs E Webster declared personal interests in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being members of the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority. The Councillors declared that they had taken no part in any discussions on the proposed application, and that therefore their interests were non-prejudicial. They would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon:

• EPF/0849/10 Holmsfield Nursery, Meadgate Road, Nazeing

(c)        Pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct, Councillor Mrs R Gadsby declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the ward member – Waltham Abbey South West. The Councillor declared that her interest was not prejudicial and indicated that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration of the item and voting thereon:

• EPF/1555/10 1 Cartersfield Road, Waltham Abbey

(d)        Pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct, Councillors Mrs P Brooks, J Collier, Ms S Stavrou and A Watts declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being members of Waltham Abbey Town Council. In the case of Councillor Ms S Stavrou the Councillor advised that she had on occasion substituted on the Waltham Abbey Town Council Planning Committee. The Councillors declared that their interests were not prejudicial and indicated that they would remain in the meeting during the consideration of the item and voting thereon:

• EPF/1555/10 1 Cartersfield Road, Waltham Abbey

(e)        Pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct, Councillor Ms Y Knight, declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda. The Councillor indicated that her interest was likely to be prejudicial and said that she would leave the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon:

• EPF/0849/10 Holmsfield Nursery, Meadgate Road, Nazeing

(f)         Pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct, Councillor Mrs J Lea declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of working for Tescos which was situated opposite the site application in question. The Councillor indicated that her interest was not prejudicial but indicated that she would not be voting on the application:

• EPF/1555/10 1 Cartersfield Road, Waltham Abbey

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 Principal Planning Officer informed the Sub-Committee that the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel was requesting, from members of Area Planning Sub-Committees, planning applications from the recent past which could be considered controversial. Members suggested a small number of historical planning applications for discussion at a future Planning Scrutiny meeting.

(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.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order EPF/82/10, The Thatched House, Harlow Road, Roydon.

The Tree Preservation Order had been served to protect the most important trees in the garden of The Thatched House, Harlow Road, Roydon, following a notification to remove T3 Maple and T4 Ash due to alleged implication in a minor episode of subsidence. It also included two further trees considered worthy of projection that were not implicated in the damage claim.

Objection to the Tree Preservation Order

An objection to the order had been received from arboricultural consultants acting on behalf of engineers representing the owner’s claim. The objection was made on the grounds that:

1.         No information detailing tree amenity assessment in making the Tree Preservation Order had been provided.

2.         The value of T3 Maple was less than the compensation amount potentially payable due to the additional repair works required with T3 retained.

3.         The negative environmental impact of increased concrete use in T3’s retention.

4.         That the retention of additional trees within influencing distances, T4 in particular, left a high risk of future damage occurring, which could require an additional engineering solution.

Head of Planning Services Comments

The justification for making the order was based on the assessment that the landscape character of this part of Roydon was strongly influenced by the presence of mature trees, of which the selected four were the most notable on this property. Other trees within the garden had been deliberately disregarded because they did not fulfil the criteria, thus a process of assessment and selection sought to preserve only the most valuable trees. The order enabled detailed assessment of engineering investigations in relation to the alleged implication of the trees in the damage to the house. In making this order, the Council was acting in accordance with Policy LL7 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations. It was considered that this justification followed the Government guidance.

Until a full body of evidence was produced the issue of a Section 203 compensation was irrelevant. It was considered necessary, in the public interest, to maintain planning control over these valuable trees until such time as sufficient information was submitted to justify their felling.

The environmental impact of increased concrete use relied on the assumption that the tree, T3, in particular was retained despite evidence to show its influence in the damage to the house. This consideration was, therefore, not relevant to the serving of the Order, which was designed to facilitate a full assessment of the case and the most effective remedy thereof.

That other trees might be involved in the damage to thehouse required proof in the form of live roots, at the very least. A dangerous precedent would be set if the felling of good important trees were allowed onteh basis of a theoretical influencing distance of tree roots alone.

RESOLVED:

That Tree Preservation Order EPF/82/10 The Thatched House, Harlow Road, Roydon, be confirmed.

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

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding extension of time to enter S106 obligation for the Former Hay Loft, Home Farm, Little Copped Hall, Epping.

The Area Plans West Sub-Committee considered planning application EPF/0513/09 for the conversion of the Former Hay Loft building at Home Farm, Little Copped Hall, Epping, to a single three bed dwelling in May 2009. Members had resolved to grant consent subject to the conditions stated and subject to the completion, within 12 months, of a legal agreement to secure the removal of part of an adjacent architectural building and all resultant materials from the land prior to the first occasion of the converted stables. The legal agreement was necessary as the removal of the building could not be conditioned as the building was not within the ownership or control of the applicant. Without the removal of the building the conversion of the hayloft to residential use would be unacceptable.

More than 12 months had elapsed since that decision and the legal agreement required had not yet been completed. The owner recently submitted an engrossed agreement and requested that it can be completed. The original timescale for completion of the legal agreement had passed a new resolution was required from members for the application to be granted.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development Comments

In Planning terms there had been no material change in circumstances, or in relevant policies, since the previous resolution in May 2009. Therefore it was considered appropriate to extend the period for completion of the S106 Agreement for a further 6 months to enable the planning permission to be granted.

Conclusions

There had been no material change in circumstances since the resolution in May 2009 granting consent, subject to the legal agreement and conditions, officers considered that the proposal was still acceptable and in accordance with adopted policies. As the owner now wished to progress the legal agreement, officers were of the view that an extension of the time period for the completion of the agreement, to 13 April 2011, was appropriate in this instance.

RESOLVED:

That a further period of 6 months from this date be allowed for the completion of the legal agreement under Section 106 in connection with planning application EPF/0513/09 for the conversion of the Former Hay Loft to a single three bed dwelling.

(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.

Members thanked officers for sending notices of delegated decisions to Members via email.