Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 April 2014 as a correct record (attached).

         RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 23 April 2014 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

a)         Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor S Stravrou  declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the Ward Councillor. The Councillor had determined that her interests were non pecuniary and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon:

·         EPF/0465/14 7 Monkswood Avenue, Waltham Abbey, EN9 1LA

(b)        Pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct, Councillor J Lea  declared a personal interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of being the Ward Councillor and living in a close proximity of the application. The Councillor had determined that her interests were not pecuniary and would remain in the meeting during the consideration of the item and voting thereon:

·         EPF/0465/14 7 Monkswood Avenue, Waltham Abbey, EN9 1LA.

(Director of Governance)  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, the Planning application be determined as set out in the annex to these minutes.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Planning Officer, Mr Godden informed the Sub-Committee that following an outline planning application for the demolition of Picks Farm and adjacent Mulberry House to allow for the construction of a school, 308 dwellings, a village hall and a public meadow with two lakes. No tree survey had been submitted with the application, however a topographical survey identified the trees on the site and the indicative layout drawings did not show which trees were to be retained and which were to be removed, they were therefore all considered to be under threat of being felled for development purposes. All the objections to the order could be  managed either via applications to undertake work to the trees or exempt the requirement for an application. In confirming the order it would ensure that careful consideration was given prior to any tree works being undertaken and that such works were undertaken for good arboricultural reasons.

RESOLVED:

That tree preservation order TPO/EPF/31/13 was confirmed without modification.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Planning Officer, Mr Godden informed the Sub-Committee that the Tree Preservation Order was made following an outline planning application for the demolition of Mulberry House and the adjacent Picks Farm to allow for the construction of a school, 308 dwellings, a village hall and a public meadow with two lakes. No tree survey was submitted with the application, however a topographical survey identified the trees on the site, the indicative layout drawings did not show which trees were to be retained and which were to be removed, they were therefore all considered to be under threat of being felled for development purposes. The order protects a number of individual oaks and horse chestnuts and a mulberry tree within the rear garden of the Mulberry House.

After a site visit had been undertaken it was felt that the mulberry tree was in poor condition and the tree had a limited life expectancy and low amenity value, therefore the mulberry tree (T5 on the map) was recommended for removal from the order.

RESOLVED:

That tree preservation order TPO/EPF/30/13 was confirmed with modification.

(Director of Governance) To consider the report attached.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions for the period 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014.

In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report advised the decision-making committees of the results of all successful allowed appeals (i.e. 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 may of been made against the Council.

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 1 October 2013 and 31 March 2014, the Council received 48 decisions on appeals (46 of which were planning related appeals, the other 2 were enforcement related).

KPI 54 and 55 measure planning application decisions and out of a total of 46, 18 were allowed (37%). Broken down further, KPI 54 performance was 4 out of 23 allowed (17%) and KPI 55 performance was 13 out of 22 (59%). One other case was allowed, but it was recommended for approval by officers and supported by Area Plans Committee East but unusually an appeal was lodged against non-determination, despite District Development Control Committee supporting an approval (Application EPF/2404/12).

Whilst performance in defending appeals had improved during the last couple of years, Members were reminded that in refusing planning permission there needed to be justified reasons that in each case must be relevant, necessary, but also sound and defendable so as to avoid paying costs. This was more important now then ever given a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State could award costs, even if neither side had made an application for them. Whilst there was clearly pressure on Members to refuse in cases where there were objections from local residents, these views (and only when they are related to the planning issues of the case) were one of a number of the relevant issues to balance out in order to understand the merits of the particular development being applied for. 

      RESOLVED:

That the report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014 be noted.

(Director of Governance) 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.