Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, 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.
Minutes:
1) Councillor J Knapman noting the declaration made by the Chigwell Councillors after having been advised by officers that they may have a financial interest in the Parish Council in application EPF/2662/17, Chigwell Parish Offices; although it was not a personal financial interest for the Councillors. He proposed that this item be deferred to the District Development Management Committee because he did not think it fair that every Chigwell Parish Councillor would have to leave. Also because they knew that the application would be coming here they did not deal with this at all at Parish Level and therefore did not make a submission to go into the report. It was also noted that councillors have not had time to ask for a dispensation from the monitoring officer. Given this, it would be better for a wider District planning Committee to decide the matter.
Councillor Chambers seconded the proposal and it was put to the vote.
AGREED: that EPF/2662/17 – Chigwell Library, Victory Hall, Chigwell Parish Offices, Chigwell Members Club, Hainault Road, Chigwell be referred to the District Development Management Committee.
2) Councillor S Heap spoke in relation to 49 Manor Road, an application that was discussed in January 2017. He noted that the enforcement promised on this site had not happened as there had been no appeal and the officer had decided that there should be no enforcement because of this and partly because it did not say in the refusal that enforcement should take place. The outcome here was that a resident had not been treated fairly and that a decision of this Sub-Committee had not been actioned by officers who thought otherwise. This needed to be addressed.
The Chairman suggested that a report on this be bought back to the next meeting detailing action taken and reasons for them.
The Planning Officer advised the committee that were now a number of applications relating to this property and suggested that all the applications that needed to come to this Sub-Committee should come together along with a report on the situation so they would be dealing with the whole thing at the same time. However, because of the timescales involved it would be more likely to go to the April Sub-Committee and not the March one.
Councillor Heap also requested a site visit and this was agreed by the Sub-Committee if this was possible.
AGREED:
(1) That all current applications to do with 49 Manor Road and an explanatory report be brought to the April meeting of this Sub-Committee; and
(2) That a site visit be arranged.
3) The Chairman noted that a letter had been sent to officers querying the ability of the Loughton Residents Association (LRA) to assess an application due to the fact that they had already put in an objection to that application (EPF/1893/17).
The Chairman then read out the following statement made by the LRA in answer to this question:
“There is a longstanding protocol between EFDC and the Loughton Residents Association. The LRA has set up a Plans Group, which does not include any councillor. The LRA Planning Group comments on such applications as it considers necessary. No councillor is involved in drawing up those comments, nor even sees them before submission to EFDC. Councillors elected under the LRA banner in any case sit as independents, and each makes up his or her mind on all planning (or other) issues on the merits of the case.”