|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE
HELD AT EPPING HALL ON TUESDAY 19TH JUNE 2007
PRESENT Councillors: K. Avey (Chairman), Miss O D Dunseath
(Vice Chairman); Miss M. Starling, J.A. Smith and B. Murphy
IN ATTENDANCE Councillor Mrs. J. Hedges
OFFICER Bob Whittome (Town Clerk)
Fourteen members of the public were present.
59. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs R. Macrae and
N. Hines
60. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 5th June 2007, were
confirmed.
61. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Cllr Miss M. Starling declared a prejudicial interest in
application EPF/0677/07.
62. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Eight applications for planning permission were considered and the plans
inspected.
|
EPF/0677/07
|
19-23 High Street
Alcyone Developments Ltd |
Outline application for the
erection of 14 one and two bedroom apartments.
|
|
Cllr Miss Starling, having declared
a prejudicial interest, left the chamber.
Prior to its consideration of this
application, Members RESOLVED to allow Mr. Bob Church, speaking for
the many local residents present, to outline the objections of local
residents and to present a paper summarising these objections.
Committee also took account of several letters of objection to the
application.
Committee object to this
application. The proposal is very similar to previous proposals by
McCarthy & Stone. The removal of the lower rear element from the
previous 28 unit application gives the current proposal a very much
more ridged form presenting it as an incongruous mass. The rear
elevation will be some three to four metres higher than the adjacent
properties in Beech Place and approximately one and a half metres
higher than the ridge of 15 High Road. Recent national planning
guidance suggests that care should be given to retaining a sense of
place which arises from the traditional built environment,
particularly in key areas of settlements which determine the character
of the settlement. National Planning Policy Statement 3, (pp53),
para 49, page 17 suggests that more intensive development will not
always be appropriate and that in conservation areas, and other local
areas of special character, new development opportunities will only be
justified if there is no adverse impact on the character and
appearance of the area. Committee feel that the proposal will have an
adverse impact, out of keeping with this part of the High Road.
Therefore, the proposal amounts to over-development of the site and
is harmful to the character and amenity of the area contrary to Policy
CP2, CP7and DBE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Local Plan
Alterations. The proposal has excessive bulk and its visual impact
will be oppressive and over-bearing resulting in excessive loss of
amenity to adjacent properties contrary to Policies DBE2 and DBE9 of
the adopted Plan and Local Plan Alterations. Noise and disturbance
will arise from the 17 car parking spaces being placed in what are
essentially garden areas. The placing of the rear entrance to the
block close to the patio and below the bedroom patio windows of 15
High Road would create noise and disturbance and the development will
result in excessive levels of over-looking of adjacent properties and
their amenity spaces and, therefore, have an overbearing impact
resulting in loss of amenity contrary to Policy DBE2.
The proposals are likely to
result in the loss of a preserved tree to the detriment of the visual
amenity of the area, contrary to LL7 of the adopted Local Plan. The
proposals may result in young families taking up the accommodation and
therefore, in accord with Policy BE5 of the Essex and Southend on Sea
Replacement Structure Plan, a contribution towards school provision
should be a feature of this development. However, the fact that
younger people with families may take up occupancy of this development
underscores the issue of loss of amenity for adjacent properties.
Cllr Miss Starling returned to the
chamber.
|
|
EPF/0994/07 |
Langley
31 Lindsey Street
Mrs A Price |
Single storey side extension, first
floor side and rear extensions, re-roof garage, loft conversion with
front and rear dormers and roof alterations. |
|
Committee had no objection to
this application, however, Committee did request that the District
Council Planning Officers should look at the potential for the new
development overlooking No. 27 Lindsey Street amenity space.
|
|
EPF/1069/07 |
3 Nicholl Road
Mr R Wain |
First floor side extension |
|
Committee had no objection to
this application.
|
|
EPF/1149/07 |
Land adjacent to Broadbents, South
of No.4 Buttercross Lane
A J Poulton (Epping) Ltd |
Erection of one, two storey house. |
|
Committee had no objection to
this application.
|
|
EPF/1163/07 |
Coopersale House
Houblons Hill
Mr & Mrs P Margetson-Rushmore |
Retention of replacement gates and
entrance pillars. |
|
Committee had no objection to
this application.
|
|
EPF/1190/07 |
Land adj. J. Harness Cottage
Lower Bury Lane
Sylvia Tunstall |
Erection of 4 semi-detached
environmentally friendly homes. |
|
Committee object to this
application because this is an over development of the site. The
access to this site and general traffic in this area do not appear
adequate for the scale of development proposed. There appear to be
tree preservation issues on the site which need careful examination by
the District Council’s Arboriculturist. It is also evident that the
proposal would result in significant over-looking of adjacent
property’s gardens. Committee noted that, in the past two houses have
achieved planning consent on this site. Members were of the opinion
that two houses would be a reasonable capacity for the site and would
result in less problems with the access and allow the disturbance,
tree preservation and over-looking issues to be more easily
controlled.
|
|
EPF1209/07 |
81 Lindsey Street
Mr & Mrs Bull |
Vehicle crossover |
|
Committee had no objection to
this application.
|
|
EPF/1218/07 |
24-26 Coopersale Street
Simon Beckley |
Grade II listed building
application for proposed chimney works |
|
Committee had no objection to
this application only provided the District Council’s Conservation
Officer is convinced that the proposals will not damage the character
of the listed building.
|
63. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER EPF/05/07 – ST MARGARET’S HOSPITAL,
THE PLAIN, EPPING
Committee NOTED the imposition of a Tree Preservation Order at the above
address.
64. REVIEW OF GYPSY & TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION NEEDS IN THE EAST
OF ENGLAND
Committee considered the consultation document relating to this matter and
commented on the following points.
Committee deplored the short period of consultation allowed on this
matter. It was felt that proper consultation could not take place in such
a narrow timescale in which the consultation document did not reach
Council until 3-4 days before the consultation event relating to Essex was
to be staged. Committee also commented on the difficulty of merely
looking at numbers of provision when actually the issue is far more
complex. It is recognised that there may well be a need for transit
accommodation and private site accommodation within Essex. However,
transit accommodation is exceedingly difficult to manage within current
legislation and there appear to be few examples of good practice in this
regard and many examples of failure. Provision of local authority sites
is also fraught with hazards, with many examples of expensive failures.
Therefore, considerable care must go into, not just the numbers of sites
provided, but also ensuring that sensible management of the sites is
factored into any provision. There is also a history of local authorities
providing sites that are poorly designed and located in accord with the
needs of the settled population rather than in accord with the needs of
the travelling population. This is a situation which has led to expensive
deterioration of site provision. The provision of sites must be in areas
where there is a demand by travelling families for sites. Site location
must also respect the boundaries between travelling families so as to
avoid conflict. It is notable that travelling families themselves have
chosen to settle in large numbers in certain parts of the country
(Doncaster, South Cambridgeshire, York etc) but there are many areas of
Britain with few or no travellers, therefore, placing expensive
accommodation provision in these areas is unlikely to realistically
provide for the real accommodation needs of travelling families.
The Clerk was requested to collate the above views of Committee (and any
other views expressed by Committee Members directly to the Clerk).
Committee RESOLVED to delegate authority to the Clerk to make a response
on behalf of Committee in accord with the above comments.
65. PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY – CONSULTATION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ORDERS TO EXTINGUISH AND DIVERT AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL
Committee considered this large consultation document and AGREED to defer
consideration of this consultation issue to the meeting of Planning &
General Purposes Committee on 17th July.
66. PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE - CONSULTATION
Committee considered this large consultation document and AGREED to defer
consideration of this matter to its meeting of 3rd July.
67. EFDC PLANNING DECISIONS
Committee NOTED the decisions of Epping Forest District Council Plans
Sub-Committee East..
GRANTED:
|
EPF/0867/07
|
TPO/EPF/0526/07 |
TPO/EPF/0379/07 |
EPF/0749/07 |
|
EPF/0794/07
(Revised Appl)
|
EPF/0843/07
(Revised Appl) |
LB/EPF/0754/07
(Revised Appl) |
EPF/0762/07
TPO/EPF/12/04 |
REFUSED:
|