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.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 8 May 2013 as a correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 8 May 2013 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 R Bassett declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of living opposite the tree concerned at Wheelers Green. The Councillor had determined that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon:

• EPF/0752/13 11 Wheelers Green, Middle Street, Nazeing EN9 2LF

(b)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors Ms S Stavrou and Mrs M Sartin declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following items of the agenda, by virtue of being members of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. The Councillors had determined that they would remain in the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon:

• EPF/0711/13 Hailes Farm, Low Hill Road, Roydon CM19 5JW; and
• EPF/0495/13 Willow Lea, Clyde Road, Roydon EN11 0BE

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Ms S Stavrou declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of her grandchildren attending High Beech C of E Primary School. The Councillor had determined that she would remain in the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon:

• EPF/0587/13 High Beech C of England Primary School, Mott Street, 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.

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

To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee received a report and guidelines regarding the Planning Protocol – Site Visits from the Senior Democratic Services Officer.

At a meeting of the District Development Control Committee on 27 March 2013, consideration was given to further guidance for both members and public attending site visits to avoiding the perception of pre-determination and ensuring that there was a consistent approach during each visit.

The guidance was in two documents, one aimed at members, and the other at interested parties. The documents formed supplementary guidance to the Council’s Planning Protocol.

The District Development Control Committee agreed that an item should be placed on each planning committee to reiterate the process for future visits. It would also be sent to members, applicants and objectors (where known) when a site visit was organised.

It was agreed by the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development that officers would meet to ensure a consistent approach by officers.

It was suggested that the Chairman of the Planning Sub-Committees remind members at a site visit of the guidance and that this was not an opportunity for lobbying members.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the guidance regarding site visits be noted, and that the guidance is followed when undertaking future site visits; and

(2)        That this guidance has been published on the District Council’s website and will be sent to members, applicants and objectors (if known) when a site visit is organised by noted.

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

The Sub-Committee received a report from the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development (Development Control) regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 October 2012 to 31 March 2013.

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 being to inform the committee 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 may have been made against the Council.

In recent years the Council’s 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, 30.9% in 2009/10, 36.6% in 2010/11, 28.8% in 2011/12 and 27.7% in 2012/13.

Since 2011/12, there had been two local indicators one of which measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (KPI55) and the other, which measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (KPI54). Over the six month period between October 2012 and March 2013, the Council received 43 decisions on appeals (40 of which were planning related appeals, the other 3 were enforcement related). KPI54 and 55 measured planning application decisions and in total, out of this 40, 15 were allowed (37.5%). Broken down further, KPI54 performance was 6 out of 25 allowed (24%) and KPI55 performance was 9 out of 15 (60%). Out of the 15 planning appeals that arose from decisions of the committees to refuse contrary to the officer recommendation during the 6 month period, the Council was not successful in sustaining the committee’s objection in 8 cases.

Therefore, the sub-committees were urged to continue to heed the advice that if considering setting aside the officer’s recommendation it should only be in 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. As this was now highlighted as a separate performance target (KPI55), it therefore came under more scrutiny. Whilst 60% was the wrong side of the target for KPI55, members would be more satisfied to know that for the year end, the target of 50% had been achieved.

Out of 3 enforcement notice appeals decided, 1 was allowed and 2 dismissed. The appeal allowed concerned Holmsfield Nursery, Meadgate Road, Nazeing concerning the material change of use of the land to a private traveller/gypsy site.

During this period there were 4 successful finalised awards of costs made against the Council. Circular 03/2009 Costs Awarded in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings advised that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who had behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. There was only one case within the Plans West  ...  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.