Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Democratic Services Officer will read the following announcement:

”I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet (or filmed) and will be capable of repeated viewing (or another use by third parties).

If you are seated in the lower public seating area then 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 then you should move to the upper public gallery.

Could I please also remind Members to activate their microphones before speaking.”

The Senior Democratic Services Officer reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and outlined the procedures and arrangements adopted by the Council to enable persons to address the Committee, in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission. The Committee noted the advice provided for the public and speakers in attendance at Council Planning meetings.

(Director of Governance)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Committee noted the following substitutions for this meeting:

(i)         Cllr Philip for Cllr Knapman; and

(ii)        Cllr Chana for Cllr Brady.

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

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

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on:

            (a)        20 April 2016; and

            (b)        8 June 2016.

Resolved:

(1)        That the minutes of the following meetings be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record:

            (a)        20 April 2016; and

            (b)        8 June 2016.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the demolition of garages and replacement with 2 x 3 bedroom two storey affordable homes with 5 parking spaces and associated landscaping (DEV-006-2016/17).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the demolition of garages and replacement with two 3-bedroomed, two storey affordable homes with five parking spaces and associated landscaping, to the rear of 54 – 60 Hornbeam Road in Buckhurst Hill. The application was before the Committee as it had been referred by Area Planning Sub-Committee South on 29 June 2016 with a recommendation to refuse permission under the Minority Reference rules (Part 4, “Council Rules”, Rule M2 refers).

The Assistant Director stated that the site was approximately rectangular in shape and accessed by a narrow road adjacent to maisonettes and Bourne House, which led onto Hornbeam Road. To the east of the site was a sports pavilion with open playing fields beyond, to the north was a washing, drying, storage area for Bourne House, and to the south was the rear garden for 62 Hornbeam Road. The site itself was a Council-owned garage site with 25 garages located in two linear facing blocks; one block backing onto the playing fields and the other backing onto the rear gardens of 54 – 60 Hornbeam Road. Of the 25 garages, 18 were currently vacant. The site was not in either the Metropolitan Green Belt or a Conservation Area.

The Assistant Director reported that the proposed development would have rear gardens backing onto the rear garden of 62 Hornbeam Road with parking to the front of the site. The main issues with this application related to the suitability of the site, design, impact on amenity, and the key issue of the loss of the garages and the impact this might have on parking in the area. After careful consideration, Planning Officers had concluded that the proposal was considered acceptable with limited impact on amenity and an acceptable design. Although concerns had been raised regarding the existing parking situation and the methodology used for the Transport Assessment and Parking Survey, it was felt that the surrounding area could accommodate any displaced parking. On balance, therefore Planning Officers had originally recommended planning approval be granted as the proposal would provide affordable housing within the District on a previously developed site.

The Assistant Director highlighted that Area Planning Sub-Committee South had refused the application on the basis that the application was likely to exacerbate parking stress in the locality to the detriment of its character and residential amenities.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, and that objections had been received from Buckhurst Hill Parish Council and a further 25 addresses in the locality, plus Buckhurst Hill Leisure Gardens Association (Allotments) and Buckhurst Hill Residents’ Association. There had been no letters of support received. The Committee heard from the Parish Council and the Applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

A number of Members expressed their grave concerns about this application. Parking was a major issue in the locality as the parking space available was only one third of that actually required. In addition, it was strongly felt that the Parking Survey submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

(Director of Governance) To the attached report for the demolition of garages and replacement with 3 x 3 bed two storey affordable homes with 7 parking spaces and associated landscaping (DEV-007-2016/17).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the demolition of garages and replacement with three 3-bedroomed, two storey affordable homes with seven parking spaces and associated landscaping, to the rear of 2 – 12 Hornbeam Road in Buckhurst Hill. The application was before the Committee as it had been referred by Area Planning Sub-Committee South on 29 June 2016 with a recommendation to refuse permission under the Minority Reference rules (Part 4, “Council Rules”, Rule M2 refers).

The Assistant Director stated that the site was broadly rectangular to the rear of 2 – 10 Hornbeam Road and accessed by a narrow vehicular road. To the south of the site were further properties set back from Hornbeam Road, with allotment gardens to the east which were in the Metropolitan Green Belt (although the site itself was not). The site was Council-owned with 14 garages located in one block backing onto the allotments. Only three of the garages were currently vacant. The site was not in a conservation area.

The Assistant Director reported that the proposed dwellings would have rear gardens backing onto the rear garden of 14 Hornbeam Road, with parking laid out to the front of the site. The main issues for this application related to the suitability of the site, design, impact on amenity, and the key issue of the loss of the garages and the impact this might have on parking in the area. Planning Officers had concluded that the proposal was considered acceptable with limited impact on amenity and was of an acceptable design.  Although concerns had been raised regarding the existing parking situation and the methodology of the Transport Assessment and parking survey, the existing parking surrounding the area had been shown to be able to accommodate any displaced parking.  Given this, and that the proposal would provide affordable housing within the District on a previously developed site, Planning Officers had originally recommended that approval should be granted for the application.

The Assistant Director highlighted that Area Planning Sub-Committee South had reused the application on the basis that the loss of 11 let garages and the failure of the proposal to make appropriate alternative provision for off-street car parking within the locality, was likely to exacerbate parking stress in the locality to the detriment of its character and residential amenity.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, and that objections had been received from Buckhurst Hill Parish Council and a further 25 addresses in the locality, plus Buckhurst Hill Leisure Gardens Association (Allotments) and Buckhurst Hill Residents’ Association. There had been no letters of support received. The Committee heard from an Objector, the Parish Council and the Applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

Some Members of the Committee felt that this was an intensively used garage block with 78% of the available garages currently being let; parking was a very real issue in the area and the loss of these garages would only exacerbate the problem. Again, problems were highlighted with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for thedemolition of garages and replacement with 2 x 2 bed two storey affordable homes with 10 parking spaces and associated landscaping (DEV-008-2016/17).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the demolition of garages and replacement with two 2-bedroomed, two storey affordable homes with ten parking spaces and associated landscaping, to the rear of 30 – 34A Hornbeam Road in Buckhurst Hill. The application was before the Committee as it had been referred by Area Planning Sub-Committee South with a recommendation to refuse permission under the Minority Reference rules (Part 4, “Council Rules”, Rule M2 refers).

The Assistant Director stated that the site was rectangular and accessed by a narrow alleyway adjacent to Hornbeam House and properties to the north. To the north of the site were further residential properties set back from Hornbeam Road, with allotment gardens to the east. The site was a Council-owned garage site with 22 garages located in 4 separate blocks; 14 of the garages were currently vacant. The site was not in either a conservation area or the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Assistant Director reported that the proposed dwellings would have rear gardens backing on to the rear garden of 24 Hornbeam Road with parking to the front of the site. The main issues for the proposal related to the suitability of the site, design, impact on amenity, and the key issue of the loss of the garages and the impact this might have on parking in the area. Planning Officers had concluded that the proposal would have limited impact on amenity and was of an acceptable design. Although concerns had been raised regarding the existing parking situation and the methodology of the Transport Assessment and Parking Survey, the existing parking surrounding the area had been shown to be able to accommodate any displaced parking. Given this, and that the proposal would provide affordable housing within the District on a previously developed site, Planning Officers had originally recommended permission should be granted for the application.

The Assistant Director highlighted that Area Planning Sub-Committee South had refused the application on the basis of the loss of eight let garages and the failure of the proposal to make appropriate alternative provision for off-street parking within the locality, the proposal was likely to exacerbate parking stress in the locality to the detriment of its character and residential amenities.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, and that objections had been received from Buckhurst Hill Parish Council and a further 25 addresses in the locality, plus Buckhurst Hill Leisure Gardens Association (Allotments) and Buckhurst Hill Residents’ Association. There had been no letters of support received. The Committee heard from an Objector, the Parish Council and the Applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

The Assistant Director responded to the comments made by the Parish Council concerning the proposed closure of vehicle gates to the rear of 32 and 34 Hornbeam Road. The submitted plans showed the vehicular access permanently closed and the pedestrian access temporarily closed. However, this was a private civil matter between the landowner and the occupiers of these properties, and not a planning matter.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for change of use of an agricultural barn to a 2 bed dwelling (DEV-009-2016/17).

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the change of use of an agricultural barn to a 2-bedroomed dwelling at Highlands Farm, Old Rectory Road in Stanford Rivers. The application was before the Committee because, although the planning application itself was agreed by Area Planning Sub-Committee East at its meeting on 13 July 2016, the deed of release from the existing Section 106 Agreement on the site was not. Consequently, the application was referred to this Committee under the Minority Reference rules (Part 4, “Council Rules”, Rule M2 refers) within the Constitution.

The Assistant Director stated that the site was a rectangular plot of land with an access road situated on the east side of Old Rectory Road in Stanford Rivers. The site currently contained a two-storey timber framed and boarded barn, with office space on the first floor, in the north east corner of the site and a yard area. To the west of the site poultry was kept in a well treed area, and there were open fields to the south east. The site was well screened by mature trees and was within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposal also included a parking area and garden within the existing yard area.

The Assistant Director reported that the main issues for this application were the design, impact on neighbours and the impact on the Green Belt. Planning Officers had concluded that the conversion of the barn would not result in a harmful impact to the openness of the Green Belt or conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The design was considered acceptable and the nearest neighbours were over 350 metres from the site and their amenity would not be affected.

The Assistant Director highlighted that, in respect of the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement, when permission was granted for the retention of the barn in 2007 (EPF/1721/07 refers) there was a concern the building could be used for residential purposes; hence the legal agreement to prevent this. The National Planning Policy Framework now permitted the re-use of buildings provided they were of a permanent and substantial construction. The current barn building clearly was, and for the application to be implemented, a deed of release would need to be authorised by the Committee as the grant of planning permission alone would not override the legal agreement.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, and that the only objection received was from Stanford Rivers Parish Council. There had been no letters of support received for the application. There were no public speakers registered and the Committee proceeded to debate the application.

The Committee felt that the barn was a sizeable building capable of conversion, and would not impact on the openness of the Green Belt as it was very well screened by mature trees. The Committee felt that the legal agreement had served its purpose for 10 years and was in favour of its release.

Decision:

(1)        That planning application EPF/1179/16 at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 24 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.

Resolved:

(1)        That, as agreed by the Chairman and in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the following item of urgent business be considered following the publication of the agenda:

            (a)        Planning Application EPF/1269/15 – Golden Lion PH, Borders Lane,             Loughton.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the demolition of the existing Public House and 10 & 12 Newmans Lane, and construction of 8 x 1 bedroom flats and 22 x 2 bedroom flats in two blocks with undercroft parking and landscaping.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Management) presented a report for the demolition of the existing Public House as well as 10 and 12 Newmans Lane, and construction of 8 x 1-bedroom flats and 22 x 2-bedroom flats in two blocks with undercroft parking and landscaping. The application was before the Committee as it was classified as a major application for development on Council-owned land.

The Assistant Director stated that the application site was roughly rectangular and situated on the north side of Borders Lane at the junction with Newmans Lane. The site was well screened at the junction by existing vegetation with the southern part of the site grassed over. Several trees were preserved, including a veteran Oak tree. The southern part of the site contained the Public House building, with a car parking area to the north. Beyond the car park was 10 and 12 Newmans Lane, a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings; no. 10 was unoccupied and was currently boarded up due to subsidence issues. The land to the east of the site was a relatively recently developed housing estate and was previously the ‘upper’ site to Epping Forest College.

The Assistant Director reported that the larger of the two blocks would form an ‘L’ shape to the southern side of the site and would contain 23 flats. Parking for 17 cars would be located behind the block in an undercroft, with a first floor communal terrace area above. This block would be set back from Borders Lane by a minimum of 8 metres and from Newmans Lane by a minimum of 5 metres. To the north of this block would be a larger parking area for 28 cars and a landscaping area around the preserved Oak tree. The smaller block would be situated to the north of the site and would consist of 7 flats. This block would be set back 2.2 metres from the boundary with 14 Newmans Lane.

The Assistant Director informed the Committee that the main issues with this application were the principle of the proposed development, the provision of affordable housing, the design and appearance of the proposed development, the impact on neighbouring amenity, highways matters, car parking, and trees and landscaping issues. In respect of affordable housing provision, the Council’s viability consultants had initially concluded that there was a surplus profit of £165,000 for off-site affordable housing contribution, but it had later transpired that they had wrongly added capitalised ground rents to the Gross Development Value for the larger block, when in fact the interest was being sold by the Council on a long leasehold and therefore the Council would receive the income from the ground rents throughout the life of the lease. The effect of this would be to reduce the surplus close to zero. The Council’s Senior Housing Development Officer had therefore concluded that the affordable housing contribution was no longer justified, and consequently a Section 106 Legal Agreement was no longer required. Planning Officers had concluded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Exclusion

To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) or are confidential under Section 100(A)(2):

The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, requires the Council to consider whether maintaining the exemption listed above outweighs the potential public interest in disclosing the information. Any member who considers that this test should be applied to any currently exempted matter on this agenda should contact the proper officer at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Background Papers

Article 17 of the Constitution (Access to Information) define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)        disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)        have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report and does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

The Council will make available for public inspection one copy of each of the documents on the list of background papers for four years after the date of the meeting. Inspection of background papers can be arranged by contacting either the Responsible Officer or the Democratic Services Officer for the particular item.

The Committee noted that there was no business to be considered that necessitated the exclusion of the public and press from the meeting.