Agenda and minutes

This virtual meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to unmute before speaking. The Chairman will read the following announcement:

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

Please could I also remind Members of the Public who have registered to speak that they will be admitted to the meeting at the appropriate time.

Please also be aware that if technical difficulties interrupt the meeting that cannot be overcome, I may need to adjourn the meeting.”

On behalf of the Chairman, the Team Manager for Democratic & Electoral Services reminded everyone present that this virtual meeting would be broadcast live to the internet and would be capable of repeated viewing, which could infringe their human and data protection rights.

General advice for those persons attending the meeting of the Committee is attached as an appendix to this agenda.

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 meetings of the Council’s planning committees.

To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Committee was advised that the following substitute members had been appointed for the meeting:

(a)        Councillor A Patel for Councillor J Lea; and

(b)        Councillor C P Pond for Councillor C Roberts.

To declare interests in any item on the agenda.

The following interests were declared by members of the Committee pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct:

(a)        Councillor S Heap declared a personal interest in item 8 (Planning Application EPF/1289/20 – 37 Fairlands Avenue, Buckhurst Hill) of the agenda for the meeting, by virtue of having corresponded with the Applicant but at no time had the Councillor expressed an opinion on the application. Councillor S Heap had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and indicated that he would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the application and voting thereon.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 September 2020.

Resolved:

(1)          That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 September 2020 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

A Planning Policy Briefing Note (March 2018) has been produced by the Planning Policy Team to ensure that a consistent approach is taken to the provision of planning policy advice for the District, particularly in relation to the Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version, which was published on 18 December 2017.

The primary purpose of the Planning Policy Briefing Note is to inform the development management process and to provide assistance for Development Management Officers, Councillors, applicants and planning agents. The Planning Policy Briefing Note is available at:

http://www.efdclocalplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Planning-Policy-Briefing-Note_Mar-2018.pdf

The Service Manager for Development Management reminded the Committee that a briefing note had been prepared to ensure a consistent approach was taken to the provision of planning policy advice, following the publication of the Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version on 18 December 2017. Members were advised that the primary purpose of the briefing note was to inform development management activities and to provide assistance for councillors, officers, applicants, planning agents and other persons involved in the development management process.

Resolved:

(1)          That the Planning Policy Briefing Note for the Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version, be noted.

(Service Manager – Development Management) To consider the attached report for a proposed two storey side extension and loft conversion with remodelling of the garage.

The Service Manager for Development Management, A Marx, presented a report for a proposed two-storey side extension and loft conversion with remodelling of the garage. This application had previously been considered by Area Planning Sub-Committee East with a recommendation to approve permission; the application was granted permission by the Sub-Committee but was then referred to this Committee for a final decision by way of a minority reference under Article 10 of the Constitution.

A Marx stated that the application site was a two-storey property with a detached double garage, shared by 36 Fairlands Avenue, and was located on the north side of Fairlands within the urban area of Buckhurst Hill. The site was not within the Metropolitan Green Belt or a conservation area. The application was a revised application to address concerns with the remodelling of the garage, as half of the garage which was to be partly demolished was in the ownership of the applicant’s neighbour. This application kept the roof of the neighbour’s garage as was but extended it towards number 37.

Planning Officers had concluded that the revised application was considered an acceptable design with limited impact to amenity. The proposed changes to the garage roof were also considered acceptable and it was recommended to grant planning permission for the application.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received for this application, which consisted of two objections to the application from the neighbour at 36 Fairlands Avenue and the Parish Council. The Committee heard from an objector and the applicant before proceeding to debate the application.

As the ward Member for the application site, Cllr A Patel felt that the revised application was acceptable and pointed out that the properties within this road were not uniform in appearance. The applicant had attempted to appease the neighbour in respect of the party wall dispute and acquiesce with planning policy. The neighbour would have the option to in-fill the space in the future and the Councillor would support this application. Cllr J Philip reminded the Committee that the applicant could construct the scheme previously approved but simply not finish the garage section. The Councillor also felt that the proposal was not out of keeping with the street scene, the applicant had taken a reasonable approach to building close to the border of the neighbour, and therefore the Councillor would support the application.

However, Councillor H Kauffman had reservations about the revised scheme as it made the neighbour’s garage look part of the applicant’s property. The Councillor felt that the previously approved scheme was acceptable, and would not support this application. Councillor H Brady agreed with Cllr H Kauffman and would also not support the application before the Committee. However, A Marx advised the Committee that he did not believe this would be acceptable grounds for refusing this application.

Councillor S Heap felt that the Committee should have the right to decide which scheme could be implemented and he felt that the proposed extension in the revised scheme appeared to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

(Service Manager – Development Management) To consider the attached report for the proposed replacement of a single dwelling with a new building consisting of x 2 no. commercial units and x 6 no. fully accessible apartments.

The Service Manager for Development Management, A Marx, presented a report for the proposed replacement of a single dwelling with a new building consisting of two commercial units and six fully accessible apartments. This application had previously been considered at the Area Planning Sub-Committee South meeting held on 23 September 2020. The application was approved by the Sub-Committee, with the addition of some extra conditions, but was referred to this Committee for a final decision by way of a minority reference under Article 10 of the Constitution.

A Marx reported that the site was located at the junction of Princes Road and Queens Road just outside the boundary of the Buckhurst Hill small District centre. On the three remaining corners of the junction, the buildings contained commercial units on the ground floor with flats above. The existing building on the site was a heavily extended, detached bungalow with dormers or roof extensions to three sides. The site was not within the Metropolitan Green Belt or a conservation area. The proposal for the new building to replace the existing bungalow included a refuse area, bike storage and a private amenity area, but no car parking was proposed.

The Committee noted the summary of representations, which included six objections from five neighbouring residences and the Buckhurst Hill Residents’ Society. In addition, Buckhurst Hill Parish Council had also objected to the application. The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent before proceeding to debate the application.

As the ward Member for the site, Cllr A Patel commented that this site was a sustainable location and welcomed the condition to remove parking permits. However, the Councillor had concerns with the relationship of the new building to the existing bungalows adjacent to the site as the buildings on the other three corners of this junction all wrapped around the corner. This development was harsh on the existing street scene and exaggerated the relationship to the existing bungalows with the elevation facing them. The Councillor felt that any development on this corner should extend up Princes Road and was not opposed to the principle of development on this site, but could not support this particular application. Cllr J Philip agreed that his real concern was the side of the building facing the existing bungalows as it created a sharp, flat elevation with a large expanse of brick worked wall. The Councillor could not support the application on this basis but accepted that the design was generally better for the elevation facing the underground railway.

Cllr C C Pond highlighted that the application had been supported by Area Planning Sub-Committee South, but requested that condition 21 should be deleted so that a separate planning application would be required for any air conditioning units. The Councillor cited the example of the problems currently being experienced with Landmark House in Loughton. However, A Marx confirmed that air conditioning units would need planning permission but the condition referred to would cover flues and ducts along with smaller grills and air vents.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

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.

It was noted that there was no other urgent business for consideration by the Committee.

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 (Access to Information) of the Constitution defines 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 for consideration which necessitated the exclusion of the public and press from the meeting.