Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 October 2013 as a correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 October 2013 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(a)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor R Bassett declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 9 (EPF/2040/13 Garage block, adjacent to 14 Harveyfields, Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9) by virtue of being a member of the Cabinet Committee on Council House Building which made the decision to submit this proposal for planning consent. Councillor Bassett advised that he had received advice from the Monitoring Officer and confirmed that he was free to speak and vote on this application.

(b)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs H Kane declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 9 (EPF/2040/13 Garage block, adjacent to 14 Harveyfields, Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9) by virtue of having attended a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Council House Building for the purpose of giving views as a local ward Councillor for this site. Councillor Kane confirmed that she was not party to the decision to bring forward the planning application and that she had received advice from the Monitoring Officer and confirmed that she was free to speak and vote on this application.

(c)        Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Stallan declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 9 (EPF/2040/13 Garage block, adjacent to 14 Harveyfields, Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9) by virtue of being the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Council House Building which made the decision to submit this proposal for planning consent. Councillor Stallan advised that he had received advice from the Monitoring Officer and confirmed that he was free to explain the application.

(d)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor C Whitbread declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 9 (EPF/2040/13 Garage block, adjacent to 14 Harveyfields, Waltham Abbey, Essex EN9) by virtue of being a substitute of the Cabinet Committee on Council House Building which made the decision to submit this proposal for planning consent. Councillor Whitbread advised that he had received advice from the Monitoring Officer and confirmed that he was free to speak on this application but was unable to vote as he was not a member of the Area Planning Sub-Committee.

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

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

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report to confirm a Tree Preservation Order with modification at Little Cutlands, Wilbea and Royd, St Leonards Road, Nazeing.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that a pre planning application submission had been received for the demolition of the existing houses on the site and the construction of 22 x 1 bedroom, 23 x 2 bedroom extra care unit and 32 two storey detached and semi detached houses.

Aerial photographs showed that the site had some large and possibly veteran trees within it. Information submitted with the application showed no signs that the site had been surveyed and there was no tree information to support the proposal. It was therefore considered that the trees were under threat of being removed to maximise the development potential of the site. Therefore, as an interim measure, an ‘area’ order was placed over the whole site to protect all trees of all species that were present at the time the order had been made.

Government guidance on the making of new TPO’s was that an ‘area’ classification should only be used in emergencies and then only as a temporary measure until the trees in the area could be assessed properly and reclassified. A full assessment of the trees had now been undertaken and identified as 8x Oak; 3x Field Maple; 1x Hornbeam and 2 areas of woodland as being suitable for having continued protection by this order.

The proposal, therefore, was to modify the order to ensure that only those trees suitable for protection remained protected. Additionally, in modifying the order it would highlight to any potential future developer of the land which trees the LPA considered were important and allow for their incorporation in any site layout.

In amending this order from an ‘area’ order to a more detailed order, it would highlight to future developers which trees were suitable for long term retention. It was therefore recommended that the order was confirmed with modification.

            RESOLVED:

That the tree preservation order TPO/EPF/15/13 is confirmed with modification.

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

The Principal Planning officer presented a report on the threat of special measures and the potential refunding of planning fees.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the Government had introduced a new policy on 1 October 2013 whereby a local authority had to refund any planning fees if it failed to determine an application within 26 weeks. In addition, those local authorities who had 20% or more of their decisions overturned at appeal, or determined 30% or less of their major applications within the 26 week threshold over a rolling two-year period, would be placed in ‘Special Measures’. This would allow an Applicant to submit a major planning application, and its fee, direct to the Planning Inspectorate for determination.

The Principle Planning Officer highlighted that the time taken to determine major planning applications would need to be closely monitored to ensure that the Council did not lose income unnecessarily. There were potential problems foreseen with planning applications that required the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement, particularly if the delay was being caused by the Applicant. However, an extension of time for the determination of a major planning application could be agreed with the Applicant, and this option would be pursued wherever possible. It was possible that the terms of reference for the District Development Control Committee and the Area Planning Sub-Committees would be reviewed to ensure that the time taken to consider major planning applications could be reduced. A major planning application was defined as a development of 10 or more dwellings or 1,000 square metres of floor space.

The Committee shared the concerns that the report highlighted and foresaw difficulties if a Section 106 legal agreement had not been signed by the Applicant in time as the Council would then have no option but to refuse the application and rely on a sympathetic hearing by the Planning Inspector at the subsequent appeal. The Council had to ensure that it did not enter special circumstances through poor performance.

The Sub-Committee requested that notification were sent out to Members of the planning Sub-Committees and particular the Ward Members as soon as possible, in order for Members to arrange site visits before the meetings. Consequently enabling Members to make decisions as soon as possible.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the new threat of planning fees being returned for planning applications not decided within 26 weeks of being validated be noted;

(2)        That the threat of the Council entering ‘Special Measures’ if major planning applications were not determined in a timely fashion or too many decisions being overturned at Appeal be noted;

(3)        That the need for the Sub-Committee to determine planning applications in a timely manner be noted; and

(4)        That, where necessary, Applicants be encouraged by the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Development (Development Control) to sign pre and post application agreements to extend the time period for determination so as to minimise the risk of the Council having to return planning fees or falling into ‘Special Measures’.

The Sub-Committee considered a schedule of applications for planning permission.

            RESOLVED:

            That, Planning application numbered 1 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 from the Principal Planning Officer regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 April 2013 to 30 September 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 performance has 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 (KPI 55) and the other, which measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (KPI 54). Over the six month period between April 2013 and September 2013, the Council received 37 decisions on appeals (35 of which were planning related appeals, the other 2 were enforcement related). KPI 54 and 55 measured planning application decisions and in total, out of this 35, 14 were allowed (40%). Broken down further, KPI 54 performance was 4 out of 20 allowed (20%) and KPI 55 performance was 10 out of 15 (66.67%). 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 10 cases.

Area Sub-Committee South

·         EPF/1785/12   152-154 Daneley Court Nursing Home, Buckhurst Hill

·         EPF/0071/12   6 Chigwell Rise, Chigwell

·         EPF/0160/12   6 Chigwell Rise, Chigwell

·         EPF/0161/12   6 Chigwell Rise, Chigwell

·         EPF/0931/12   182 Roding Road, Loughton

Area Sub-Committee East

·         EPF/1714/12   Orchard Villa, Norton Heath, High Ongar

·         EPF/2192/12   11A Lancaster Road, North Weald Bassett

·         EPF/0834/12   New House Farm, Vicarage Lane, North Weald Bassett

·         EPF/2137/12   Threeways House, Epping Road, Ongar

·         EPF/0856/12   Cold Hall Farm, Kiln Road, Stanford Rivers

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 (KPI 55), it therefore came under more scrutiny.

Out of 2 enforcement notice appeals decided, 1 was allowed and 1 dismissed. The appeal allowed was EPF/0196/12, Cold Hall Farm, Kiln Road, Stanford Rivers, concerning the change of use from a barn to a car body repair shop, without planning permission.

During this period there was 1 successful finalised award of costs made against the Council. Circular 03/2009 Costs Awarded in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings advised that, irrespective  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.