Transcript

7 o'clock on the 13th of March and this is a meeting of the having Forest District Council area planning subcommittee east. My name is Councillor Ian Haddley. On my left, I have James Rogers from planning. On my right, I normally have Council, I have a Brady as Vice Chairman. Unfortunately, if you can't make it this evening. So with your permission, I'd like to invite Councillor Paul Kaska along to be Vice Chairman this evening. Agreed. Thank you. My further right, I have Laura Kerman, who is the Democratic Services Officer, and we have Natalie at the end who is the audio-visual controller this evening. OK. What I'd like to do now is read out a message to those in the gallery upstairs. This meeting is to be webcast, and the Chairman will read the following announcement, plus me. I would like to remind everyone present that this is a hybrid meeting, and we've broadcast live to the internet, all filmed and will be capable of repeated viewing or other such use by third parties. Therefore, by participating in this meeting, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for the webcasting and/or training purposes. If any public speakers on MS Teams do not wish to have their image captured, they should ensure that the video setting throughout the meeting is turned off and set to audio only. Please also be aware that if technical difficulties interrupt the meeting, they cannot be overcome, I may need to adjourn the meeting. Members of the party to activate their microphones before speaking and turn off afterwards. Thank you. Right, item two, a vote to the public with speakers. Circulated. Thank you. Apologies for absence. Apologies have been received from Councilor Brady. And from Councilor Bedford. OK. Thank you. Declaration of interest. It appears there's no declaration. Yes, there's a whole evening in Council. I'll go for a shot. Chairman, on agenda item eight, personal non-pregidicial, and I know the applicant. OK, thank you, Holly. Thank you, Chairman, and the same declaration for me that the applicant is known to me, but it's a non-pregidicial and non-pregidial. Exactly the signs for that. Exactly the signs for that. OK. Any more? No, OK, thank you. I mean, it's the last meeting. Do you accept that a fair representative of what happened at that meeting? Did you agree? Great. Great. Thank you. Any other business? No other business. Site visits. No, it's time visits. OK, first item, item eight. EPF 002223. 34 Crores Road, EPF 001660E, on pages eight to 19. That's being led through by Kelly on the video link. OK. Thank you, Chairman. So agenda item eight relates to 34 Crores Road in EPF 00. It's located within close proximity to EPF in Time Centre. Here you have a OS map showing the location of the property. So number 34 comprises of the largest hatch property. You've got number 36, which is a bungalow, and 32 denier, which is a two-story property. And, as you can see, the existing dwelling is set back from the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties. Here we have photographs of the property, so this is the front elevation, and then we also have a two-story detached garage with accommodation at first floor level, which is on the boundary with number 32. Down here you can see there is properties opposite, which are quite similar to the proposed scheme before you. This photograph shows the two-story structure on the boundary with number 32. Here we have a photo montage of the proposed scheme. As you can see, we've got a pair of semi-detached properties, very traditional in their appearance with traditional materials and a hreform. And here's a block plan showing the proposal. So you can see the existing building here, and then hatched at the back. You can see the extent of what's proposed at the back, and you can see the relationship between the proposal, which is single-story in this part, in comparison to the garage that's going to be demolished and its relationship with the neighbourhood number 32, as well as its relationship with number 36. And as you can see, the built form would not extend significantly beyond either of these properties. You can also see that there's two off-street parking spaces for each dwelling, and garden space would be provided for each house. This plan just shows the internal layout. Each house would comprise of four bedrooms. Just to highlight that there would be utility rooms and bathrooms, so there would be some side-facing windows, but there are two non-habitable rooms. There would be a secondary kitchen window, and as these are secondary, because those windows at the back would be recommending a condition that these are obscure glazed and fixed shots. And this shows just the elevations of the proposal. And then here we have the existing straight view. As you can see, the topography of this site gradually increases upwards towards number 32, and then you have the proposal here which would sit in a similar position to existing. It would move the built form in terms of the main house closer to 32, but as you can see, the garage would be demolished, and the overall height of the building would be the same as existing with the eaves a similar position. I would like to highlight to members a couple of changes to the proposed conditions. Firstly, we'd like to add the condition that I mentioned before about the obscure glazing to the ground floor kitchen windows, making sure that they would be obscure glazed and fixed shots 1.7 metres above internal floor level. A further conditions recommended stating that the development must be completed in accordance with the submitted drainage strategy, which has been considered by the drainage officer and is considered acceptable, and also a further amendment to condition 4 relating to restricting permitted development rights and just to insert that class A to G of part 1 to schedule 2 should be included in the wording of that condition. This is also note that we've had a late representation from nearby resident yesterday raising concerns about the accuracy of the report and measurements of the plans. All of the plans have been checked for the dimensions and the gains recent aerial photography and the council's GIS. They are accurate, officers are of the view that the two-story built form of the proposal would be no more than 1.2 metres beyond the rear of the first floor of No. 32. Furthermore, the ground floor element of the proposal would be no more than 0.7 metres beyond the rear of the conservatory as per the report. Officers note that concerns were raised that comments were made about impact on neighbours in terms of the position to the boundaries, however this was a pre-application submission and was a formal advice. Overall, the development would be acceptable as it would not result in harm to the neighbouring properties. It would include off-street parking and suitable immunity for future occupants, and there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. Approval of the application is therefore recommended. Thank you. The first one is objectoring person, Mr Robert Lambert. You have three minutes, thank you. On behalf of residents, directly surrounding No. 34, many are seated above me. I would like to address two topics, the bats and over development. The residents of No. 32 have sent the committee details of objections relating to discrepancies of measurements in the application, officers reports and the loss of residential amenities. I have lived personally directly opposite No. 34 for 28 years and the bats have been there since and no doubt long before. This roost has been at its current location for decades, simply placing bat boxes at the back of the site is not sufficient enough. The demolition of their roost, which is in the garage at the right-hand side of the property, will mean that they will never return to the area. Not only have we been in contact with the bat conservation trust to make them aware of this very distressing and urgent matter, we found on their website and I quote, It might seem like an option to offer alternative accommodation, but bats are very faithful to their roosts and usually return year on year. This is one reason why they have suffered so greatly from habitat loss. Bat boxes do not mimic the exact conditions of their existing roosts in the safety of the current building. As a result, they are not likely to move into any bat boxes nearby as an alternative to their chosen roosts, end of the quote. If this roost is destroyed by the approval of this development, the bats will die once they have lost their chosen place to hibernate and roost, which is that garage to the right of the property. No matter how safely you quote, relocate them, very simply, the bats will die because that building simply won't exist if this development is approved. This is something that EFDC as the local planning authority should be taking more seriously. We've also discovered that reports regarding the bat survey has simply vanished from the council's website somehow. There is no reason other than pure profit to demolish a single detached dwelling that could easily be refurbished. If there was evidence of the dwelling being unsafe or dangerous in any way, rendering it uninhabitable, then an application to replace with a single detached dwelling would be more appropriate. However, we know it is habitable as the developer already has someone living at the property and has been for some time. This will be significant over development with consequent overlooking and loss of privacy for the two adjacent houses, as well as the road directly behind bodily close. Last we accept that there are semi-detached properties further up and down the road. The 15 houses where 34 falls directly in the middle are comprised of solely detached properties. Currently, four of those are bungalows and three of which are very proximate to number 34. In terms of size within the street scene, number 32 is currently the largest, placing a new development of two semi-detached dwellings which simply stretched the entire width of the land would be therefore significantly larger visually by a third. This means the new development would completely dominate the street scene. We have also found it worrying that the measurements regarding proximity have constantly changed throughout various iterations of the plans that have been drawn up, none of them matching true measurements as well as the garage being called a dwelling consistently purely to justify the vast width extension. This level of over development will create a dangerous precedent for all of the remaining 14 detached dwellings in the future when they come to be sold. Can you wind up, please? Thank you. OK. We have another speaker on this, which is the applicant, Mr Geoffrey Shaw. Three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for taking the time to consider this application this evening. I'd like to make three or four points. I'd also like to comment upon the object there. The dimensions on why drawing are precisely accurate, I can assure you. I've been doing architectural drawings now for 60 years, and I can assure you they're accurate. I'll come along to the bats a little bit later. Taking us, we're a small, local family business, and since leaving WSC French, my two sons and me have built almost 50 houses in the locality. We all live in the area. We love the area, and we want to make a positive impact upon the area. Regarding the proposal, we've had a pre-planning application, and we have addressed all of the concerns raised by the planning officers, and we've taken on board the advice of the planning officers throughout the scheme. I think if you look at page 10 of the officers report, you can see that the neighbours' comments have all been taken into consideration and addressed. Obviously, other than those that are not planning issues. We've designed the proposed 70-text houses to fit seamlessly within the street scene. In fact, I can tell you I've actually copied the elevations of the nearby 70s-ached houses with brick and render, the same hips, the same bays, the same front doors and porches, so the proposal will fit seamlessly into the street scene. It's also relevant that, again, what the objector has said, the distance between our property and the boundaries is over a metre, and is more than many of the adjacent houses. The adjacent house on the left comes up to the boundary. The existing house on the west is only about 800 from the boundary. So our boundary distance is either side or reflected within the street scene. The design also ensures that there's no overlooking of the neighbour's gardens and there's no loss of amenity for the neighbours. And in fact, when we take down the two-storey garage, which is on the east side, it will greatly improve the daylight and the views in the garden of that neighbour, because it's quite a monstrosity at the moment. Going back to the bats now, the neighbours have expressed concern about the bats. Following that, we had a bat survey last year, and during that survey they found one common soprano-pipastral bat coming out from one of the tiles. It's a very common species of bat, and it does not roost there. No, sorry. The bat that the consultants who are specialist, I can't remember the name now, specialist consultants for bats confirmed that it was not a roost. It was purely an overnight stay during their season. Can you wind up, please? Then we obviously, if it's approved, we will need to get the consultants to produce a mitigation strategy, and then following that, we have to get a licence from Natural England in order to remove the bats, and they take the bats away and relocate the bats. So that's it. Many thanks. Thank you very much indeed. Okay. Members, who would like to speak for a colleague? Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chairman, and please, this application has been called to committee tonight. Unfortunately, I don't feel like I can support this application this evening. I do feel, along with many of the residents, that it's over-development and actually out of character with that specific part of Crow's Road, which is pretty much solely detached houses along that part of the street, and I'm concerned around overlooking and loss of privacy for those surrounding the property. I'd like to delve a little deeper into the bat issue, if that's okay. I have to admit, I'm not an expert in bats, and I would like a bit of clarity from the officer around what does the ecological assessment entail, and to what extent of the counts will feel comfortable that they've done enough work around this. Obviously, we're hearing one side from the applicant and one side from residents and concerned parties on this matter, and I'd just like a bit of reassurance around that point, thank you. Okay. Kelly, could you add anything? Yes. I'm the expert when it comes to the protection of bats, however, the applicant has submitted a report produced by an independent consultant, which has been assessed by the council's ecology officer. They have submitted comments, quite detailed comments explaining why they are happy with the content of that report. They've made several recommendations in terms of conditions and informatives that we have recommended on the decision notice. For example, we have recommended a condition around ecological enhancements, but the other thing to point out is that in terms of bat protection, it actually falls outside of planning law, if you like, they're protected under European and national legislation. So if there's any harm to bats, if they cause any harm to the bats, to where they're roost, that's actually a criminal act, and the applicant can actually be prosecuted for that outside the planning process. I hope that answers your question. Thank you, Kelly. Councillor, are you happy with that? Thank you. Just from the officer's experience, how often have we dealt with applications where bats have been an issue before and what mitigation has been put in place there? Is there any prospect, if members were minded, to approve this application tonight of putting an informative in place to further protect the bats and ensure the applicant does all they can within their power to make sure that they are dealt with it in the proper way and ensuring their survival? Yes, we have recommended an informative highlight into the applicant that the bats are protected by European law and that it is indeed a criminal act to harm their roost. We can add further protection by way of an informative, however, as I've said, it's not actually within planning, legislation or policy. It sort of falls outside of planning. They have submitted everything that they can. So from our perspective, I'm not sure there's anything else that we can do. There is a requirement, as the applicant stated, for them to apply for a licence from natural England. So that is something that has been flagged up with the applicant and something that they do need to do. Okay. Thank you. In terms of that licence, what kind of checks and balances would there be after that was applied for a secured? That would be done to natural England to secure and take any further action or investigation if required. As I said, it's a criminal act outside planning, so I guess there would be some opportunity if there was a suspicious activity on the site because it is a criminal act, a resident nearby resident could take the matter further, civilly. Just wanted to come in that. Given that we have in the informative a requirement for a response from natural England, whether it be a licence or a statement that a licence is not required, can we not put on a pre-commencement condition that that information is provided to the local planning authority before any commencement of development? That seems to me to fit across the boundaries of the licence from natural England, if we don't have any control of it, it's a legal matter. But we could make it a pre-commencement condition if it's a sensible idea. That seems reasonable, Kerry, can we do that? We did have a discussion about including a pre-commencement condition, but because it's not a technically planning matter, it wasn't inappropriate to put a condition on. As I've said, it is a criminal act under European law in any event. So that could add a condition if members would like us to do so, but as I said, it's not something that we would normally do. I recognise it's not something that we would normally do, but I think given the concern particularly around that we've heard expressed around this, and I'm sure the developer from what he was saying is well aware of what needs to be done. It makes sense to make sure it's in place before any commencement of this development. We do that around other things that are not necessarily planning conditions, so perhaps in this case we could bend it slightly and say that just the production of the response from natural England is acquired from a pre-commencement point of view. Okay. Does everybody agree with that? It seems pretty clear. Oh. Oh. Thank you, Chairman. Happy to support that condition. Just a question for the officer. I just wondered how many prosecutions there have been in relation to this kind of, if there was a breach, how many prosecutions have been undertaken? I'm going, Kelly. Unfortunately, that's a question I can answer. I'm not aware of any prosecutions in terms of effort and forest. I'm relatively new to the authority, and in terms of my window career, I'm not personally aware of any prosecutions. Councillor, very good. Thank you, Chairman. I mean, my fear with this, obviously, is it gets taken out of the hands of the planning authority and on to natural England. So we have very little oversight in relation to, if there was to be an issue here, we have very little oversight in relation to it, so it would be quite useful to have from the officer just information about what action natural England have taken in the past on this. Okay, I think it's outside of this meeting at the moment. Perhaps I could help just slightly. There was a prosecution back in October 2023 of a developer in Derby who did do that. He was prosecuted, and he was fined almost £15,000 for doing so. That's a pretty good incentive. Thank you. Councillor. Sorry. Councillor Payne, and then both Councillor Whitehouse. Right. Councillor Whitehouse, please. No. Councillor Payne was next. Good evening, Chairman. I've just got a question, just going back to the plans, actually, of the proximity of the dwellings to adjacent properties. And there are certain things in there that I find a bit disturbing about the height of the kitchen window and not being able to see out of the kitchen window and not being able to open the kitchen window, and I do question whether in future a resident might change that. It does seem to be a strange thing for a kitchen to actually have that restriction on it, and it does seem very close to the adjacent property. Thank you. I mean, if and when that happens, I think it would come through here anyway, possibly so it's not as opposed to by as the property, of course. Councillor Hallymah. Thank you, Chairman. And I think Councillor Payne makes a good point there to kind of just have clarity with that would have to, with a planning permission, would have to be sought to change the shape and size of the window. Councillor interjecting. Yes, right. Change. Would that be the case? Councillor interjecting. Sorry. If you wanted to make any small changes, they would have to apply for a non-till amendment potentially. Just going on the point of the kitchen window, so in terms of the condition that we're recommending, we are suggesting that it would be openable above 1.7 metres, so 1.7 metres above, finished for a level, they could have an opening to that window, it wouldn't be completely closed off. Thank you, Chairman. I just wondered whether a condition could be put in place so that no further applications could be made to change that window, which would detrimentally affect the neighbouring properties. Could we have a little bit of... We can't put a condition preventing them from doing that, however the condition that we're recommending says that that window has to stay obscure-glazed for the whole existence of the development, so they wouldn't be able to change it unless they came to us and applying to do so. Okay. Come back with that one, so that sounds like any application to change that window, we'd have to come through here again. So, the next one is Council White House. Council's your White House. Thanks, Chairman. Yes, let's go and ask our bats, but that's been well covered. The overlooking, that's been the concern with the overlooking, that's the windows on the side, the utility room, the bathroom and the kitchen window, we've dealt with the kitchen window, and I'm right to understand the other two windows would be obscured as well. Were there other overlooking concerns that were addressed, because obviously that was mentioned earlier. The other issue on the trade, I can't work out from the street scene in the plan whether the street trees are affected outside, and one of the characteristics of Crow's Road is the street trees in the verge, and it's not clear from where the positioning of the crossover is whether or not they'd be impacted and clearly that's something we wish to avoid with the condition, I think, if necessary. So what is your condition exactly? Well, I'm asking if they're impacted. If they're not impacted and they're secure, I don't need to suggest anything, but that's what I'm asking for, that's what I'm asking the question. The trees are protected, the street trees and the applicant has submitted a full and odd report and tree survey that has been assessed very closely by the council's tree and landscape and officer who is completely happy with the information and mitigation measures that they have proposed. There is a condition as well which states that the development has to be constructed in complete accordance with that information that's been submitted. Thank you. Councilor Whitehouse, are you happy with that? That's the question, thank you. Okay. Councilor Jarrett Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Could the officer put up the picture that was showed earlier of the proposed development, the houses with the front view of them, please? Is it this one, or is it the street view that you were referring to? The proposed development that showed the front didn't have cars in it, I don't think they were. The picture that was put up before looked very stark, it just had empty paving in the front of the house. Can you see this? This is the proposed street scene, so that's the drawing, but there was a photo montage at the beginning of the presentation, which is this one. Oh, I didn't notice the cars last time when it was there. I was expecting that in the front there would be some form of hedging or small wall or something to sort of soften it. I mean, many developments have some sort of hedging or wall across the front and they tuck the cars in behind, and it doesn't look nearly so obtrusive and stark and unpleasant as that is there. I know that people are paving over their front gardens, but we don't need to start with that, we don't need to approve that. I think to think it looks really stark, I'm also concerned in a sort of planning thing at these very, very wide driveways. We're losing so much curbside, and people need to park there sometimes on the curbside. These very wide, wide drives I think are a concern. I just think it needs some sort of softening in the front, some sort of landscaping. It's just too stark to me. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. But we are looking at what we're presented with here, which doesn't have that. Okay, next one, we must have got a private conversation going on. Excuse me, one meeting. Who got those? No, we haven't. Right. No more speakers. Thank you, Chairman. Just a question on the trees. Is this photo indicative without the trees, but would the trees actually be there? The street trees in reality. If I may, just adding a point on the overdevelopment and the changing street scene of Crow's Road, just further down beyond the bungalow has been a very big development that went in in recent years. It's worth noting in terms of overdevelopment, the impact that this development and the other, although we're not considering that tonight, have had, and when considering the point of overdevelopment, it's worth bearing that point in mind as well, but just some clarity on the trees would be helpful. Thank you. Okay, I think we have to go back to a council of Phillips suggestion about the pre-compensement condition. Are we raising that, or is it yours? Chairman, I thought was a question from Council Whitbread to the officer around whether the worry would be any street trees in that, in actuality. Could we get that answer first, please? Okay. Sorry. Kelly? Yeah, exactly. I can confirm that as an indicative view, there will be street trees there, and they are plotted on the plans that are specified in the decision notice. Okay, so, Councillor Fillet, I believe it was your mention about the pre-condition. It was me who mentioned about precondition, and I made some suggestion of what it might be like. Okay. It would be around provision of the response from natural England, whether that be a license or whether that be no license required to the local planning authority prior to commencement that any work on the site. Okay. So does anybody second that? Second. Anybody agree? All agree? Yes, agree. The hands are going up. Thank you. So can we include that precondition, pre-compensement condition? Yes, we can. Okay, thank you very much. So we come to a vote, and I believe... You've got removal of permitted development rights, pay-to-jay, and conditional obscure glazed for the kitchen fixed shut, but another option, is another proposal. No, that's... Jim, and those were proposed, I think, by the officer, so we don't need to report them. They're part of the overall report. Yeah, okay. Okay, so back to the vote. The recommendation is to approve the application. So those in favour of approving? Please raise your hand. Those are the gains. There's abstaining. There's four people standing up, which then refers this up to the DDNC, and for those people, this now goes to the Higher Committee for determination, as four members have stood up. Yep. The only thing is, just a point of order first, you could have had a Chairman's vote, but as it... Four people voted up. That's right. Okay, if you're happy with that. Well, thank you very much, so that finishes that item eight, so... Do you want to clarify that for the balcony, what's actually happening for us? Yeah, can you not hear me? Yeah, those are from the balcony. This application will now go to the District Development Committee at the next possible opportunity, which won't be too long away, but it will be looked at again and determined by a different group of people. So, sorry to drag you out for this. We were to know this was going to happen, and this is what happens now. Okay, item nine is EPF 180823, 101 Thornhill Northfield, CM16-8DP, pages 2023, and the office's recommendation is to approve. Thank you. I think Kelly leads us through this again. Thank you, Chairman. This application relates to 101 Thornhill, which is an end of terrorist property. It's been extended at the rear. Here we have an image of the street scene. This is the subject property, and as you can see, the neighbouring property along with others on the terrace have front porches. Here we have a front elevation as existing, and here we have the proposed ground floor planning elevations, so you will see that they are proposing to extend out the front here to include a porch and to extend their kitchen internally, and this is the proposed front elevation, and as you can see, it extends across the floor width of the property. Officers are of the view that overall the front extension would not result in harm to the neighbours in terms of loss of light or outlook, and overall, we are of the view that the front extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the property or the way the street scene, and it is noted that there are similar front extensions in the immediate area, as such, approval is recommended. Okay, thank you, Kelly. We have speakers on this. First one is the objector, Mr Kevin Hind, you have three minutes. Thank you. We strongly object the proposed development as it would result in loss of light and visual amenities to our property, which is at 102 Thornhill. The proposed single story front extension would extend right up to our glazed porch without a gap, and block out light as well as our view on that side. Furthermore, the development will extend of her the 40 centimetres beyond the front of our existing porch, resulting in a further loss of light and visual outlook from our property. The officer's report has used number 118 Thornhill as a comparison in supporting approval of the application, but we do not believe that this is appropriate. The extension at number 118 does not extend across the whole of the front of that property and allows for a gap between the extension and the neighbouring glazed porch at number 117. In short, that extension does not risk blocking out any light. The development would also deny us access to the side of our porch facing number 101, where we would need to be able to maintain our throne and broadband lines, our boiler condenser pipe and our tumble dryer outlet vent. No analysis has been made for this in the plans. The extension would also look out of place when compared with the other properties in the area because it will extend across the whole of the front and they will connect with our porch. Again, we do not believe that a comparison with number 118 is correct because that property is located at the end of a block on the corner of the cul-de-sac where there is ample space to accommodate such an extension. We know that other residents, as well as Northfield Parish Council, have also objected to this proposal. In summary, we contend that the development is contrary to policy DM-9 in the Epping Forest Local Plan on the grounds of overdevelopment, loss of light and loss of amenity. Councillors, I e-mail you all directly in relation to the application and thank you for listening to my concerns this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Second speaker is Susan DeLuco's Rep. 30 Northfield Parish Council, so you have three minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Chairman and Members. The parish council has submitted its concerns which have been reproduced by the officer in his report in the agenda. However, we are aware of the concerns put forward by the neighbouring residents. While our sixth section is reported by the officer as being a small extension, it is to the front of the property. The parish council feels it represents overdevelopment and is out of keeping with the street scene and adjacent properties. It is detrimental to neighbouring residents. The extension would overlap the neighbouring property and cause a loss of visual aspect to the residents at number 102 Thornhill. The resident has contacted the parish council when this application was first put in front of the parish council as they were very concerned that the impact it would have on their property. It should be noted that the front extension would extend across a full width of the front elevation of the house whilst it would be a single story at high, it would have an impact on the neighbouring resident and it would be prominent within the street scene. We therefore ask that you respectfully listen to the residents' concerns and turn the application down. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. First put will speak, is you? Thank you, Chairman. I don't have too much to add but I just think it's just worth the point now. I have a lot of sympathy with the objector and also agree wholeheartedly with the parish council's points. This is a particular part of North Ford, it's actually quite uniformed and therefore I do believe this would be very much out of, it's a perfect example of something that would be out of keeping with the street scene so I would find it very difficult to support this application. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Fillet. Thank you, Chairman. This is a very interesting one, quite balanced as well. I have to say I do not think that it is over-development. I think we'd be pushing it to say that but I do agree with Councillor McIver in terms of the impact, what you have as we saw from the email that was sent to us by the object in terms of pictures is you have at the edge of their property a glazed porch. If what we were being proposed here is a similarly glazed porch on the other side, then I think you would lose issues around light and you would lose issues around impact on the immunity of neighbours. I think as it currently stands, I'm with Councillor McIver, I would find this one a difficult one to support. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. Okay, well, Maury's in me a little bit, it's the fact that the two porches are close to each other, very close and I don't know how you're going to maintain them, rot or something, you know, you can't do it, still. Anybody else, nobody but the looks of it, so I guess we go to a vote and the officers recommendation is to approve, those in favour approving, please raise your hand. One, Chairman. Those in favour of rejectage? Those against? Against. Against, yeah. 15, Chairman. And there's abstaining? One. One. Okay, so the rich case, the application, it's been a lot approved, no, no, no, no, no, no proposal. Chairman, given that vote, can I propose that we refuse this application on grounds of the fact that it's out of keeping with the street scene and of impact on the neighbours' immunity? Okay, seconding. Councillor interjecting. Seconded. Seconded. Seconded. Councillor McAliver? Okay, so we have a vote based on that motion, those in favour? 60. Okay, thank you, those against? No. And abstaining. One. One. One. Okay, under those conditions then, it's been not accepted. Refused. Or refused, even. So thank you very much. Okay, so we go to the next item, which is item 10. EPF2443, so that's 23. New Haven. Blackhorse Lane Northwood, that's been CM16-6EP, page 24-41, office of recommendation approval and conditions. Okay, James, I think you're leading us through that. Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, everybody. So, yes, item 10 is New Haven, which is located on the corner of Blackhorse Lane and the high road in Northwood. The proposal before members tonight is for the extension of the existing dwelling and the erection of a new dwelling on land immediately adjacent to it. Application is before you tonight due to an objection from the parish council and a neighbour and officers are recommending that plan of mission is granted. So just to start with the application site, it's located on something of a prominent corner of Blackhorse Lane and the high road within Northwood Bassett. Members can see that the existing curtling is generous and the existing dwelling sits well within that site. And when we look at it from the high road itself, you can see that it is a particularly prominent site and it does have this attractive hedging around it as well. And this is it when viewed from Blackhorse Lane with a view towards dwellings on the high road in the background. So here we have the existing and proposed site plans. You can see that the intention is to extend New Haven and to subdivide it into two separate dwellings and to erect a detached dwelling on the land adjacent to it. The curlage would be separated thus between the three. And in terms of elevations, the existing dwelling is highlighted in blue to give you a comparison. You can see that the proposed ridge height of the new dwelling won't exceed that. It follows the design form and takes its cues very much from the existing dwelling that's there as well. Each of the dwellings would have two car parking spaces which are marked out here. The proposal does seek to retain as much as possible the existing and attractive hedgerow that you can see from that photograph that I showed. So other than the creation of the new access which is required for highway purposes, that is the intention. And here are the existing and proposed street scene elevations. This is the existing bottom and the proposed at the top. You can see that in terms of its overall bulk and its mass, its height, it is comparable to its adjacent neighbour. And overall officers have considered that it does make good use of urban land and it would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of those of the neighbours adjacent. And it is compliant with the requirements of the development plan when considered as a whole. So it is therefore recommended that plan efficient is granted. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We have speakers for this. First one is, again, Susan DeLuca for Northfield Parish Council. Susan, you have three minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Chairman and members again. Thank you for allowing me the second opportunity of speaking this evening. Members of the parish council are very concerned at the development of the Shelley bungalow into three substantial properties. There does not seem to be sufficient and meaner space of the whole development and the type of buildings that are proposed do not seem to be in keeping with the area which is currently open in nature. It seems to be too close to the footpath boundary. We do not believe that this is an effective use of the land. The parish council believes that there will be an impact on the residential and meanity of the neighbouring and adjacent residents, both in the high road and in black horse lane. There seems to be a lack of adequate parking spaces, two for each property doesn't seem to be enough. It will lead to parking along the road and to the curbside areas which are already busy with parking for the school. Overall, the parish council believes that this house, which is one of the character houses in northward village, should not be developed to this extent. It represents an overdevelopment of the site and is detrimental to the overall outlook of the area. We therefore ask that you turn down this application. Thank you, members. Thank you very much. We have another speaker, though, which is Bob Bennett, who is the applicant in person. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for letting me speak on this one. As members recognise, it is a sensitive site, actually, and officers have made the point about it. This application has a long history, actually. The first pre-application of submission was made in 2022, two years ago. I made a pre-application of submission. We originally proposed four houses on the site, and the council officers suggested that was too many, and suggested three would be more appropriate. We then took the view that, very in mind, the dwelling does have some character. It's a post-war house, actually. It's not that old or anything, but it has a certain character. The best way of actually developing the site would be to extend the existing house, so you can basically keep the same sort of shape and format of it, and then the new house would be designed in the same sort of format on the side of it. There is a very large amount of interest based for each property, as you can see, from the application plans. Also, because of the character of the site with this very attractive hedge, which I think the officers pointed out, there's also some large, mature trees at the back of the site. There's some smaller trees on the site as well, which would need to be removed to actually build the development, but we've submitted our biocultural plans and the landscaping plans and proposals and new trees on the site as well. In respect to the parking spaces, we're complying with Essex County Council's standards. We had to increase the size of the parking spaces as well to meet their new requirements, so we provided the minimum amounts of hard service on the site as possible, and the only piece of edge that's been removed is to provide access to the actual car parking spaces. We think the site was well designed, and we'll be an asset to the area, so we hope members will support the application. Thank you. Okay. Let's say something first. The Council will come over. Thank you, Chairman. I do have some sympathy with the Power of Council's concerns. It is a very notable location within the village, and also it demonstrates what the good thing Northworld is, in a sense, there is some lovely space in the parish, and we're very fortunate with that. However, I do feel that the application has made very good effort to be respectful of the current design of the property, obviously in the fact that it's been extended, but also recognising the need for parking with, I think, very generous two spaces per dwelling. We often, in this committee, in fact, I can reference one not too long ago, see applications where there is totally inadequate parking, and he have two spaces per dwelling. Yes, it would be good to have some visitor spaces, but I think for a development of this size, there are similar ones along the high road in Northworld. I think the parking is sufficient. I understand the concerns about the wider black horse lane parking issues that can occur, but of course that is a matter for the highway authority, and I think that the applicants don't know anything they can. We can't expect a single application to solve an issue for a whole road, and it's never going to. And the current site has nowhere near as many parking spaces as the new development would. As regards, the other concerns mentioned, I think the one issue I do have perhaps might be just very minor with regards to the design, but I think it is an overwhelmingly good example of how we can make good development on Brownfield in a village setting. So I'm mindful to approve it, and actually I think we should, as a committee, take note that when an applicant does make good effort to provide good parking, we're very quick to jump when there isn't adequate parking. Here we have an example of when there is adequate parking, I think that should be recognised. It is also in a part of the village, a part of the village I know very well, so I lived there for a number of years, where you have got both newer and older heritage property. There is an eclectic mix of property on that street scene. So whilst I think it is lovely to have the openness, I do also feel that the current application would fit in because you already have an eclectic mix, just opposite black horse lane. You have a bungalow that's actually very large to the rear and is modern looking, you then have more Tudor style to the right, and into the left you have the Bassett Fields development, which are from around 2005, so you have a very real mix. You also have opposite this property, some of Norfield's oldest properties, so I think if there is a part of the village where you are able to have some newer designs whilst maintaining an in keeping village fill with the existing property, I think this is a part of the village where you can do it, so I'm very happy to support the application on that basis. Thank you. Councillor Holyday. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I appreciate Councillor MACKAYVOR's comments on the parking, which is something we all certainly look for in developments and has been a frustration for many recent developments which we've seen at this committee. I would suggest that this is over development in a village site, and would echo many of the concerns raised by the parish council this evening. This is a very publicly visible site. This is a significant increase in the footprint, and actually will have a huge visual impact on the village. So I would just like to echo the objections raised by the town council, sorry, by the parish council this evening, and say that I will not be voting in favour of this application. Thank you, Councillor for that. Thank you, Chairman. It's very interesting to hear two somewhat divergent views. I think Councillor WITBREAD has got a number of good points there. However, I do think, as was pointed out in the report, it is a significant-sized site, and on page 28, it's definitely called out that the size of the dwellings are not overly cramped. They meet the nationally technical standards. We also see from there that there is sufficient amenity space for each of them. I think on balance, I'm probably finding myself in favour of this. However, I would like to modify one of the conditions that we have on this application, namely condition 21, which is the removal of GPDO rights. I think it would be useful to remove, as well from part one, section FA, which is the provision of hardstandings. I don't think we need to remove B, which is the ability to replace an existing hard standing with a new material, but I also think we should take part two A away, as well, which is the provision of gates. I think one of the things about this particular site is its openness and the green hedge there. I think the possibility of putting gates on there is a bad idea, so I'd like to remove those, as well, if I have support for those proposals. That's two proposals, for two, does anybody like to second those? There's quite a few seconds down there. Those in agreement? Sixteen. Thank you very much, the gates. Stating. One. One of the gates. An abstaining. Nobody. One. One. Yeah. Sorry. We're at 15.4. One against and one abstention. Thank you very much. James, are you okay with those? You've got those words? Yeah. Yeah. Well, that was it. Okay. That was it. That's super. Here's a... So, no. No, it's not. Anybody else like to say anything? Go to the vote. We'll go to the vote with the alterations. Okay. So, now it's time to go to the vote with the alterations, the extra additions as voiced by Councillor Fillet. So, those in favour of granting the application, raise your hands. Sixteen. That's the gates. Three. No, I'm very sorry, my maths has gone awry there. Three. Staining. So, it's 14.4. Okay. So, I think we're going to put the conditions that application has been granted. Okay. Thank you. The next item is item... 11. 11. Chairman. Yeah. I'll find it. 11. APF. 2578. So, 22. Holmes farm. Belt road. Thead and gone. Happy. CM16. Page is 42 to 55. Well, there's a recommendation to grab. James, I think. You're okay. It is. Thank you, Chairman. So, yes. So, item 11. 2578. Straight to two. We have it on our records as home farm, which is on Mount Road, but I am reliably informed. It is potentially Horns farm. For the avoidance of doubt, I have got a map that will clarify exactly where it is, but I just wanted to make that point clear. So, the proposal tonight is for the conversion of former agricultural buildings into commercial and distribution uses. Application is before members tonight due to an objection from the parish council and neighbours. Officers are recommending that plan of permission is granted. Members may remember this was deferred for a member site visit, which took place in December of last year. So, starting with the application site and for the avoidance of doubt, this is the application site here. It's on the northern side of Mount Road, on close to the junction with Banks Lane. The proposal, as I said, in the introduction is to change the use of the existing buildings from an agricultural use into an employment use. The change of use of the existing buildings is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Providing that change of use doesn't cause harm to openness of the Green Belt, or to the purposes of including land within it. So, in this particular case, a structural survey has been submitted, which demonstrates that these buildings are capable of being converted. And for those of members that saw it on the site visit, they would see that they are of a substantial and permanent construction, and just to show you for members that perhaps didn't see it or don't know the site, these are the buildings in question. They clearly substantial and well constructed, and they are capable of being converted. The character of that change of use into an employment and commercial use is not one that would cause harm to openness, even above the activity that could happen there in any event. And so, officers consider that this is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I think it's important to note that this kind of development, it not only facilitates, but it encourages the rural economy to thrive. And to use redundant buildings for an employment use is exactly what our local plan seeks to do. Incidentally, ECC highways, as the Highway Authority have no objection to the application, they looked in detail of, in particular, movements during peak traffic periods, and concluded there would be no harm to highway safety. I should also address the reason for the delay from the original time this was presented before members was to do with the F&F Special Air of Conservation. As members will know, anything that could potentially cause it an adverse effect, in this case air pollution, needs to demonstrate that it will not do so beyond a reasonable scientific doubt. So through discussion with the applicant and through reviews with our external transport consultants, subject to conditions requiring the provision of electric vehicle charging points and those charging points to only be used for electric vehicles, there would be no significant, there would be no adverse effect, I should say, on the integrity of the Special Air of Conservation, and that is beyond a reasonable scientific doubt. So all in all, officers are recommending that planning permission is granted subject to the condition set out in tonight's agenda. Thank you. Thank you James. We have two speeds of that, the first one is. Councillor. Councillor. Councillor. Councillor. Councillor. Councillor. Councillor. You have three minutes? Councillor. Councillor interjecting. Good evening, Chairmen. Yes, I'm Peter Colle, Chairman of the Thaden Mount Parish Council. Our parish council submitted objections to the application in January and July of last year. Our original objections still hold good, but some issues have developed subsequently. Our main concerns and those of a large number of the residents in the parish surround traffic volumes and road safety. The application site is just outside our boundary, but Thaden Mount is greatly impacted by traffic volumes. Access to the site, other than from the Epping direction, is via our thoroughfares, being Mount Road, Banks Lane and Epping Lane, we've already indicated that the volumes referred to in support of the application should be disregarded as the information is gathered immediately post-COVID. Furthermore, the assessment of projected traffic volumes is based on theoretical criteria. The site provides for 35 parking spaces with room for more. Within its rural position, the site can only be accessed by way of motor vehicles. The application includes B8Us, which is storage and distribution, which clearly anticipates vehicle movements to and from the site. Existing traffic volumes will also be affected as a result of a planning permission being granted for the houses on the Serbs farm site, which is opposite. Ironically, Mount Road has been subject to traffic monitoring in the past few weeks. We have been unable to ascertain who commissioned the installation of monitoring equipment, but presumably traffic volume and possibly speed figures will be available very shortly. It would be preferable to defer a decision on this application given our concerns about traffic until this evidence has been released. The use of local roads, especially by heavy vehicles, unsuited to upcountry lanes as rat runs greatly increases traffic, especially when there is trouble on the M25 and M11. Last Saturday, the M11 was closed, and the roads in the area surrounding the site were almost impassable. Trouble on the motorways is a common occurrence. As to road safety, there are major worries in the parish about the Bank's Lane Mount Road Junction, which if you bring up the plan could be clearly seen as immediately adjacent to the site. There is also concern about the double bend a little further from the site in Mount Road. Over recent months, the parish council has collected a large volume of data and photos of accidents at the sites. The information has been submitted to Essex Highways to support applications for traffic calming measures. A separate application has been made by the parish council to Essex Highways for village gateways to encourage speed reduction. No final decision has yet been received in relation to those applications. There have been many accidents at these locations and road signs and telegraph poles have been demolished and largely not replaced and road markings worn away. Our July 23 representation drew attention to the dangerous junction at Fiddler's Hamlet, which is about half a mile from the site, but this has been addressed with new signage, including illuminated warning signs and road markings. The junction is subject to a 40 mile limit, but the Bank's Lane Junction appears to be equally dangerous, but has no protection, and is subject to a 60 mile limit. I am aware that local residents steer their vehicles away from the mouth of the junction to reduce the risk of collision. In the light of all this, it seems wrong to move the entrance of the site closer to the junction as is proposed. Chairman, I have got two other very brief points if I may make them. I appreciate it. I will be on my time. Very quickly. It regards the site itself on the landscaping point. If consent is granted for this development, the parish council is anxious that the scheme should properly disguise the buildings on what would otherwise be a rural scene. A great deal of shrubbery and trees have already been removed from the site, and finally, on the Greenbelt issue, outdoor storage is a concern to the parish council. Part of the site is already used for storage enclosed by palisade fencing, this together with the five application buildings and the two new agricultural buildings to the rear of the site would constitute, in our view, inappropriate development harmful to the purposes of the Greenbelt. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Okay, the next person is Mr Robert Preston, who is the agent on Teams. You have three minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. Thank you for taking the time to discuss our application. My name is Rob Preston, I am the agent acting on behalf of the vouchers in Hale from Marshall State. You are considering an application for five redundant palm buildings to commercial uses. The application has been recommended for approval with all relevant technical statutory consultees in support of the application, including highways, noise, drainage, ecology and contamination. The application has been assessed to be in accordance with development plan and national policy, and there are no material considerations which indicate there should be a departure from a positive determination. The application will support the viability of the existing operations of the farm through permitting farm diversification, which the MPPF affords great weight to supporting rural businesses through regenerating currently vacant buildings. The application will provide benefits for the local rural economy through supporting new employment opportunities and income whilst constituting an appropriate and lawful development permitted within the Greenbelt through the reuse of existing buildings that have been confirmed as permanent and structurally sound. The additional built form will be introduced, and only external changes proposed are a cladding of the buildings to replace asbestos cladding. The proposal, therefore, in policy terms does not represent an appropriate development harmful to the purposes of the Greenbelt, including openness, and it will continue to maintain the existing function and character of the Greenbelt. A scheme of new planting and landscaping under condition will also help to screen the proposal and to assimilate it into the surrounding countryside. There is, obviously, already an element of open storage on the site as part of the agricultural use, and therefore, actually, the additional planting is considered to provide an overall enhancement. The application is sought to maximise highway safety through proposing to upgrade and relocate the existing access to achieve maximum visibility displays, and this will, in fact, represent a betterment of the required standards. Appropriate and robust traffic calculations, including speed surveys, have been undertaken. These demonstrate any potential increase in vehicle traffic will be negligible and accommodated within the existing capacity of the highway. There is also policy compliant parking provision on site. This was all regarded as acceptable by the Essex County Highways Authority in their consultation with the response following a robust assessment, and they concluded that it will not produce a safe and efficient operation of the highway. We trust the reasons for and benefits of the small-scale developments are clear by generating local employment opportunities, redeveloping redundant buildings, and supporting agricultural diversification, and we respectfully ask the Councillor to support the officer recommendation of approval. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and I called for a site visit on this application previously. It feels like a long time ago now on request of Councillor Heather Brady, who is the ward Councillor, who had a number of concerns about this application. Unfortunately, Heather Councillor Brady is not here this evening. I'm listening to both the officer's remarks and the parish's concerns and objections this evening. It sounds like we're pending a lot of highways, action and update. I know actually Fiddler's Hamlet, which is in my own division, just outside, is actually about to undergo a consultation on reducing the speed limit. We've heard that there's an LHP scheme with some village gates to kind of mitigate some of the speed in issues there, and it's probably also worth noting that Epilane has probably got to be the worst road in the district at the moment in terms of potholes. I do hope it is soon to be repaired or at least made safe, but my proposal this evening actually was going to be to ask for a deferral of this application to see some of the outcomes. I know if there's an LHP scheme on the list, funding is due to be allocated in April, and I think the outcome of the consultation on Fiddler's Hamlet will probably wait in for a date but will be early summer. So my proposal this evening, if I have a seconder, is that we defer this application to we hear some further updates on some of the highways issues, which I think are really pivotal in this application. Okay, thank you very much. So do you have a seconder for that? Who did you want? So it's in favour of deferring this subject. Chairman, before we go to that, I think we owe it to the applicant and for providing planning to set a very clear set of conditions that would mean that this comes back to us. We did hear about the traffic survey being done, that seems a reasonable one to do, and it seems that you've got an LHP scheme which will be considered in April. I think we should set the plan's east meeting in May, at least provisionally, to come back because then it's clear to everybody what the triggers are for coming back. I think as it is at the moment, it's a little bit too unclear to be fair to the applicant. Okay, so just a second, you're saying that May is a date where it can come back. These items can be cleared by then. I'm suggesting that for fairness to the applicant, we should set that as a date for it to come back. It may be at that point, in fact, given that we will have a new council by that point, can I suggest that before that we actually do a recite visit because it's likely that the members of this committee may be different. You also had to come from the Credy and Council of the Credy, first I think. Thank you, Chairman. The points I was going to make, I will leave until it's deferred, and I welcome that deferral. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor MACKAY. Councillor MACKAY. Again, just to support the deferral, but also as the Councillor Fade amount, I feel I should just put on record my slight declaration of interest in a sense that I have been actively campaigning for a number of the pending schemes and submitting them. I think that's only fair that I put that on record. Also, there are a number of—the parish council has lots of evidence about various—I think it's probably fair to say that the highways department's data will be very different when lots of the current work is completed, so I think I welcome that deferral, but also just wanted to put on record that there are a number of—there's a significant number of highways, mitigation, safety strategies, two pre-brought forward Fade amount, and I think it's only right this application is considered once those have been confirmed. Right, OK. Let's go back to the proposal end, which is based on deferring the application to May, and whilst other information regarding traffic is gathered. If it isn't gathered by May, of course we have another situation, but we can't really control that. That is out of control. So, do we have a seconder for that? Councillor interjecting. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Yes, the record. OK. Those in favour of this motion, please raise your hand. 16. That was a good? 0. That was abstaining? 1. OK. So, I think, you know, defer this application until the May meeting subject to the right conditions happening prior to that meeting. Councillor interjecting. Just before we finish this one, can I say that had it gone to discussion, I had a number of concerns around this, including the car parking, because parking of cars in itself is recognised as having an impact on the openness of the Greenbelt. We've seen in the report that there are 35 car spaces allocated for this. That is a significant impact on the openness of the Greenbelt, and that will still, I think, be a concern even come May. Councillor interjecting. No doubt you'll bring that up. You're perfect, Councillor BRI. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. All right, OK. Councillor interjecting. Next item, exclusion of the public and president, sorry. So, close the meeting at 20 past 8. [BLANK_AUDIO]