Agenda and minutes

Apart from the apologies noted above, Councillor Ms S Stavrou requested that her apologies be noted at the meeting. Although she was not a Panel member, Planning was within her portfolio on the Cabinet.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

There were no substitute members present.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items of the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview and Scrutiny members are asked to pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an Overview and Scrutiny Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub-Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub-Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an Overview and Scrutiny meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such  a matter.

There were no declarations of interest made pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct.

To agree the notes of the Panel meeting held on 2 December 2010 (attached). The last Panel meeting (extra-ordinary one) held on 10 January 2011, are being finalised.

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the Panel meeting held on 2 December 2010 be agreed.

The Terms of Reference are attached.

The Terms of Reference were agreed.

The Work Programme is attached.

The following was noted:

(7)        Review a selection of controversial planning decisions to see if lessons could be learnt from their consideration.

It was noted that the site meeting organised for Saturday 5 March 2011 was not going ahead. It was advised that suggestions were needed for possible site visits in the Area Plans West Sub-Committee area. It was suggested that a site close to the Gunpowder Mills in Waltham Abbey would be suitable for a visit. It was advised that photographs of the site taken at night would assist at the visit. Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, said he would email Panel members with suitable dates on a Saturday, along with links to Iplan as well.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). To note the attached Improvement Plan.

1.    An August 2010 version of this Plan was on the agenda of the Panel’s meeting on 2^nd December as a supplementary. A further copy of that is attached.

2    The plan cross referred to several other items that were on the agenda for that meeting e.g. reviewing certain protocols, increasing the amount of information on i-Plan, and the creation of the Business Plan for 2011-2012.)

3.    Because of the scale of the agenda on 2 December, and at the subsequent extra meeting on 10 January the plan has not really been discussed as such, although progress on most of the items within it is being made.

4.    Perhaps the key issue now is what should be contained in a further Improvement Plan, which is able to be resourced with all other work.

5.    It is suggested that items 2 (i-Plan), 3 (Business Plan), 4 (Practical Measures) and 5 (Green Issues) can all be continued with; albeit with revised Smart targets, but if Members wish other items to be included, then that needs to be discussed.

6.    There is now a regular amount of information provided about various aspects of the Directorates work within the Council Bulletin, however, there is a question about whether that information is being provided in the right place.

An updated version of the Improvement Plan would be submitted to the Panel in the new Council year.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached Directorate Draft Business Plan 2011/12.

The Panel received the updated Directorate of Planning and Economic Development Business Plan 2011-2012, presented by Mr P Millward, Business Manager, Planning and Economic Development.

Attention was drawn to the training of directorate staff. There was concern that the District Council should get value for money for external training undertaken. However it was possible that the private sector would attract trained planning staff in the future if the economy improved.

The Chairman thanked Mr P Millward for attending.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning and Economic Development Directorate Draft Business Plan 2011/12 be noted.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr J Godden, Principal Planning Officer, regarding the Planning Enforcement Protocol.

At the Panel meeting in September 2010, members had requested that a review was carried out of the Planning Protocol Code of Practice as it related to the Enforcement Section. This was due to concerns about apparent delays in subsequent action once enforcement action had been authorised.

Enforcement investigation frequently took a considerable amount of time because the planning system allowed for the submission and determination of retrospective applications and appeals made against unacceptable development. This allowed the time span of the investigation to become long. Whilst the determination of applications and subsequent appeals was taking place it could seem to third parties that nothing was taking place, when in fact it was a live case.

The Enforcement Section provided full contact details of the investigating officer to the complainants with an invitation for them to contact the officer for updates on the progression of the case.

There was concern about providing the members with information on current enforcement cases (there were 700 items raised for enforcement per annum). Members could use this information if they received enquiries from the public. It was suggested that a secure part of the District Council’s website could have information on enforcement cases. However officers were unclear as to how this could be achieved at the moment.

RESOLVED:

That the report regarding Planning Enforcement Protocol be noted.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr J Godden, Principal Planning Officer, regarding the routes for planning enforcement. A flow chart was submitted to the Panel and showed the time line from the receipt of an enforcement complaint to the carrying out of site visits.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Enforcement Route of Enforcement Action be noted.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr J Preston, Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the Essex Local Transport Plan 3 Consultation.

Every local highway authority, in this case the County Council, must produce a Local Transport Plan (LTP) for its area. This plan covered a period of 15 years. The LTP was intended to identify what the highway authority wanted to achieve by investing in transport over the next 15 years, and explain how this would help to achieve sustainable economic growth in the county. The consultation document split the County into four areas, the district was part of the West Essex area.

The consultation document listed five outcomes that the plan must deliver:

(a)   Provide reliable connectivity for international gateways to support sustainable economic growth, regeneration and wellbeing.

(b)   Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve air quality through lifestyle changes, innovation and technology.

(c)   Improving safety on the transport network and enhancing and promoting a safe travelling environment.

(d)   Maintain all transport assets to an appropriate standard and maximise network availability and resilience.

(e)   Provide sustainable access and travel choice for Essex residents helping create sustainable communities.

The consultation ran from December 2010 to 11 February 2011, but it had not been possible to report to an earlier Panel meeting. Officer level comments were therefore sent to meet the deadline, on the understanding that further Member comments would follow. The consultation took the form of a questionnaire, which was designed to encourage responses from members of the public, as well as local authorities and other relevant organisations. There were 22 questions, several of which were aimed solely at individuals, and so were not appropriate for the Council to respond to. Officers opted to respond to 5 of these. They were as follows:

Question 5

What approach should be taken to achieve the five outcomes? Three options were given, but in each case there would be similar expenditure on safety and maintenance:

Option 1         Investing in growth. Spending would be focused on improving transport connections within and between the main towns where investment was likely to have the greatest benefit to the economy.

Option 2         A better place to live. Spending would be spread more evenly across the county and all the outcomes with the aim of making Essex a better place to live and work by improving access to work, education and leisure activities.

Option 3         A low carbon future. Spending would be focused on providing travel choice and encouraging less car use to reduce CO2 emissions.

Officer Response

It was felt that Option 2 was preferred, but with reservations. As resources were going to be very restrictive for the foreseeable future, there was the likelihood that, spending would veer towards the promotion of economic growth and away from environmental objectives and projects or carbon reduction.

Question 8

What sections of the highway network maintained by the County Council should be the priority? There were 8 options given, and the top 3 were requested using numbers 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Construction Damage to Highway Infrastructure.

At the meeting held on 2 December 2010, the Panel would recall that Emma Featherstone, Development Manager Engineer, from the County Council’s Environment Sustainability and Highways Executive attended and advised that any damage to the highway include grass verges, which had been raised as a particular issue by a few members, should be reported to the Maintenance Team at the West Area Highway Office. It was further explained that the difficulty was gathering evidence and proving who or what had caused the damage and therefore how the perpetrator could be held responsible for paying for and rectifying the damage. Routine maintenance inspections were carried out by highway inspectors for the Highway Authority, who record damage/faults and start the process of rectifying and repair. It was also reported that this was not a planning enforcement function because the damage itself was not subject to planning control. However, it was agreed that further discussions would take place between the highway and the planning authorities to resolve the matter of footway damage during the construction period.

Following the meeting, the County Council have now produced simpler procedures for reporting highway problems, which would include the issue of highway damage during construction. The District Council’s website currently advertises the ease of reporting highway problems online. It was a case of reporting the problem and then investigating. Damage to verges could be repaired if on highway land. Damage to a private verge would be down to the individual owner and therefore Planning Officers need to be made aware of this before deciding the appropriateness of including any planning conditions. The County Council Maintenance Team revealed that there were 3 cases over a 6 month period where they were able to prove damage caused, at a total case damage to footways sought from the owners of about £7,500.

Secondly, all planning decision notices, including certificate of lawful development notices, were now including an information note that read as follows:

“Applicants are advised not to store building materials on the highway nor to damage highway verges, to avoid parking construction vehicles and machinery on verges. If damage occurs, the Council will require verges to be restored at the applicant’s expense.”

RESOLVED:

That the report regarding Construction Damage to Highways Infrastructure be noted.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Standard Letters – Neighbour Notifications on Planning Applications and Acknowledgement of Enforcement Complaint.

The Panel at the meeting held on 2 December 2010 requested that an item be added to the Work Programme in which they would scrutinise the standard letters the Development Control section send out to the public when they were consulted on planning applications and when the officers acknowledge an enforcement complaint for investigation.

The first letter presented, was dispatched at the beginning of the planning application process, it informed the recipient, who might be affected, of the proposed development submitted to the Council and gave them opportunity to comment.

Two leaflets were posted at the same time, and were also presented to the Panel. The first was called “Making Your Views Known,” it informed how they could find out about an application, how to comment, grounds for making objections and the decision making process.

The second leaflet was a guide to viewing the planning application online through the Council’s website.

The Panel also saw the enforcement acknowledgement letter. It explained who the complaint was allocated to, the steps the Council could take and cross references to the enforcement guide on the website. It also warned that the complaint may take some time to investigate, because time evidence needed to be built up and legal advice sought in particular cases.

RESOLVED:

That the report regarding Standard Letters be noted.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Officer Delegation – Local Council stating No Objection but comment that application go to Area Plans Sub-Committee.

In October 2010 the Panel discussed the current delegated powers of the Director of Planning and Economic Development in respect of determining planning applications where the Local Council had raised no objections to a planning application but still requested that it be reported for determination by the relevant Area Plans Sub-Committee.

As this matter was being discussed at Local Council’s Liaison Committee on 10 November 2010, the Panel requested that the relevant minutes of this committee be forwarded to them.

This issue had come about following a comment on a planning application made by Waltham Abbey Town Council, who despite making clear they had raised no objections, commented further that it should be reported to the Area Plans Sub-Committee.

Under the current delegation powers, there was no provision for such planning applications to be reported to planning committees. As reported to the Local Council’s Liaison Committee it was made clear that there were two provisions, among others, where planning applications were reported to planning committees that involved Local Council comments. They were:

(a)        Applications recommended for approval contrary to an objection from a local council which were material to the planning merits of the proposal; and

(b)        Applications recommended for refusal but where there was support from the local council and no other overriding planning consideration necessitates refusal.

The committee was reminded that local councils had two further delegation options which triggered applications going to planning committees.

The first being that they could comment, as they occasionally did, in a more positive way where it was felt necessary. The second option, that a local District Councillor could request a planning application be reported to their relevant Area Plans Sub-Committee within the first four weeks of notification.

RESOLVED:

That the report regarding Officer Delegation be noted.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding the General Approach to Assessing Impact on Light. Members had requested advice about how officers assess the impact of new development on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring dwellings. A particular concern was the impact of extensions to houses.

The purpose of assessing impact on light was to gauge whether the living conditions of the neighbouring dwellings would be excessively harmed by the development. While some harm was accepted as a reasonable balance between safeguarding the amenities enjoyed by neighbours and the right of residents to enlarge their house in order to improve their own living conditions, development that was assessed as likely to cause excessive harm to amenity was resisted.

In respect of extensions to dwellings, it was advised that there are quick methods for assessing the impact of extension on daylight and sunlight.

Impact on sunlight was assessed by considering the relationship of the proposal to the passage of the sun across the sky from dawn to dusk that was typical during the equinox. That allowed a general indication of where the development would cast a shadow throughout the day. Windows orientated in any direction within 90 degrees of due south would enjoy reasonable to good levels of sunlight. If it appeared that a shadow would be cast towards them by a new development then further consideration needed to be given to the matter of impact on daylight.

Most extensions built were to the front or rear of a house. They were normally orientated at right angles to any potentially affected window. For the purposes of gauging impact on living conditions potentially affected windows were taken as being those that served habitable rooms.

Members requested that the report be put into the Bulletin.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the report regarding General Approach to Assessing Impact on Light be noted; and

(2)        That the report regarding the General Approach to Assessing Impact on Light be put in the Bulletin.

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

The Panel received a report from Mr J Preston, Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding Feedback from Development Control meetings.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development had attended several Area Plans Sub-Committees and reported his observations to the Meeting of Chairmen, Vice-Chairman of District Development, Area Plans Committees and Chairman of Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel on 10 February 2011.

The following points were raised:

(1)        Display of plans, elevation, aerial and other photographs

(a)   PowerPoint slides with clear plans and photographs gave very high quality presentations; and

(b)   It was noted that when speakers were making points, the plan or photograph was displayed on the screen relating to the speaker’s point.

(2)        Quality of presentations by officers

(a)   All presentations were given professionally. There were only minor points of improvements, for example, the topography of some sites was more complex than stated.

(3)        Quality of Reports

For the most part the quality of reports appeared to be pitched at the right level. Areas for improvement included:

(a)   Item had made an agenda for an area sub-committee that should have gone to the District Development Control Committee;

(b)   An item reporting a Certificate of Lawful Development application, should have required that a legal officer be present. In this case the application was deferred for this reason; and

(c)   Not all necessary conditions had made it to the agenda.

(4)        Venues

(a)   Whilst there were benefits of having the largest Area Plans Sub-Committee within its local area, there were some logistical issues in getting all the necessary staff and equipment to the venue; and

(b)   It was felt that Councillor name plates were not necessarily clear to the public in attendance. The Chairman could ask each member to introduce themselves at the onset of the meeting.

(5)        Consistency

(a)   It was acknowledged that there were different styles from different officers and Chairmen. This could lead to different approaches which may be considered inconsistent or, possibly unfair.

(6)        Summarising

(a)   A short summary of the decision made should be done by the Chairman.

(7)        “An Old Favourite”

(a)   Cases involving extensions to residential properties within the Metropolitan Green Belt had been a regular feature of Committee deliberation for many years. Such cases produced a regular stream of appeals.

(8)        Procedures

(a)   It was felt that the number of declarations of interest given at planning sub-committees was too cumbersome.

RESOLVED:

That the Director of Planning and Economic Development’s Feedback from Development Control Meetings be noted.

The Chairman requested that an email group should be created for the Members of the Panel for exchanging information etc.

This is the last meeting of the Panel for this current year. There are provisional dates for next Council year which await confirmation at the Council meeting on 22 February 2011. These dates are as follows:

14 June;

13 September;

20 December;

7 February 2012; and

24 April

It was noted that this was the last Panel meeting of the Council year. New dates had been agreed for the next year, these were as follows:

7 June 2011;

30 August

22 November; and

28 February 2012

The Chairman thanked members and officers for their input and work into the Panel over the past year.