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 May 2011 as a correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 11 May 2011 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

That under Item 100 “Appointment of Vice-Chairman,” Councillor Ms S Stavrou had been incorrectly recorded as the Vice Chairman. Councillor Mrs P Smith had acted as Vice Chairman during the meeting.

(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 J Wyatt declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being a member of Waltham Abbey Town Council, but added that he was not a member of the Town Council when their planning committee considered the application. The Councillor declared that his interest was not prejudicial and indicated that he would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item:

·   EPF/2675/10 71 Farm Hill Road, Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9 1NG

(b)     Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor R Bassett declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of living in fairly close proximity to the application site concerned. The Councillor declared that his interest was not prejudicial and indicated that he would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item:

·   EPF/0054/11 Land Rear of 66 – 70 Western Road, Nazeing, Essex EN9 2QQ

(c)     Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Ms S Stavrou declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the Chairman of Waltham Abbey Town Council Planning Committee, but added that she had not been a member when the Planning Committee had considered the application. The Councillor declared that her interest was not prejudicial and indicated that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item:

·   EPF/2675/10 71 Farm Hill Road, Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9 1NG

(d)     Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs E Webster declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the ward member. The Councillor declared that his interest was not prejudicial and indicated that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item:

·   EPF/2675/10 71 Farm Hill Road, Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9 1NG

(e)     Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs P Smith declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being a member of the Parish Council, but not a member of the Parish Council Planning Committee. The Councillor had also “called in” the application to the sub-committee but stated that she was not persuaded either in favour or against the application in any way. The Councillor declared that her interest was not prejudicial and said that she would remain in the meeting during the consideration of the item and voting on the item:

·   EPF/0811/11 Richmond Farm, Parsloe Road, Epping Upland, Epping, Essex CM16 6QB

(f)      Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs M Sartin declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of having “called in” the application to the sub-committee, but stated that she was not persuaded either in favour or against the application in any way. The Councillor declared that her interest was not prejudicial and indicated that she would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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 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 – 8 be determined as set out in the annex to these minutes.

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

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions October 2010 – March 2011. In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report advised the decision making committees of the results of all successful appeals, particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation. The purpose was to inform the committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect, and, in cases where the refusal was found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs could be made against the Council.

To set the context, a Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) for district councils aimed to have less than 40% of their decisions overturned on appeal. The last available figure for the national average for District Councils was 30.9%. That BVPI was replaced by one which recorded planning appeals only. That too was changed as a National Indicator but the Council had created a Local Performance Indicator (LPI45). In previous years, this target had been to not exceed 25% of allowed decisions. 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; and
• 30.9% in 2009/10

For 2010/11, a more realistic achievable target was set to not exceed 28%, however, once again, this was exceeded (36.6%). For 2011/12, LPI45 had been split into two, one of which would measure the performance of committee reversals of officer recommendations, which generally was the main factor why the performance had not been achieved.

Performance

Over the six month period between October 2010 and March 2011, the Council received 65 decisions on appeals, of these 24 were allowed (36.9%). For LPI45, which only considered appeals against the refusal of planning permission, the 6 month performance figure was 42% allowed (21 of 50 appeals).

Planning Appeals

Out of the 22 planning appeals that arose from decisions of the committees to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6 month period, 14 were allowed and 8 dismissed. 63.6% of appeals resulting from committee reversals were therefore not supported on appeal.

The Sub-Committees were urged to continue to heed the advise that if considering setting aside the officer’s recommendations it should only be on cases where members were certain 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.

Costs

During this period, there was a partial award of costs (£1,200), made against the Council, in respect of a planning application refusal in Roydon. There was also one award of full costs (£2,326.16) in respect of an enforcement notice at Burrs Farm, Foster Street, Harlow.

Conclusions

The Council’s total performance for this 6 month period and the previous 6 months show a slight overall worsening of performance for LPI45 compared with 2009/10 from 34% to 36%, despite there being fewer appeals submitted (102 in 2009/10 and 81 in 2010/11). This was still  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(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.