CG L_ committee agenda Epping Forest Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' District Council 18 September 2002
Place: Shelley County Primary School, Milton Crescent, Ongar
Room: Community Room
Time : 7.30 p.m .
Committee Secretary: G Brazendale (Tel: 01992 564532) Email:[email protected] .uk
Members: R Morgan (Chairman), K Wright (Vice-Chairman), R Barnes OBE, Mrs D Collins, J Harrington, D Jacobs, D Kelly, Mrs M McEwen . "
Please note: A briefing for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and appointed spokespersons will be held in the Community Room at the School at 6.30 p.m . on the day of the Sub-Committee
A plan showing the location of Shelley County Primary School Is attached to this agenda
" 1 . MINUTES
1 .1 To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 21 August 2002 (attached at Appendix 1) .
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3.1 (Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on the agenda .
4. CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER EPFI04102 - HOGGS FARM, CARTERS GREEN, NR MATCHING TYE
Recommendation :
That Tree Preservation Order EPF/4/02 is confirmed with a modification in the title to include The Old House, Carters Green. Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' 18 September 2002
Background
4.1 (Head of Planning Services) TPO/EPF/04/02 took effect on 26 June 2002 to protect two horse chestnuts at Hoggs Farm and one beech tree on land owned by the Old House. Their location is shown on the plan attached at Appendix 2.
4.2 The Order was made when the council was considering planning application EPF/1011/02 at Hoggs Farm, Carters Green, Matching Tye for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling and an extension to form a garage.
4.3 The application poses a threat to the trees. The trees are of particular value, making a significant contribution to the landscaping of the site .
Objection
4.4 No objections to the order have been submitted . However, our attention has been drawn to the fact the beech tree (T2) is on land owned by the adjacent property, which is called The Old House.
Response of the Head of Planning Services
4.5 The Head of Planning Services makes his comments on the grounds of objections as follows :
(a) The modification is essential to ensure that the title accurately reflects the position of trees that are preserved by Tree Preservation Order EPF/04/02 .
(b) For the purpose of clarity it is essential therefore that the Order is confirmed with the modification proposed .
5. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
5 .1 (Head of Planning Services) To consider planning applications as set out in the attached schedule (Appendix 3) .
Background papers : (i) Applications for determination - applications listed on the schedule, letters of representation received regarding the applications, which are summarised on the schedule. (ii) Enforcement of Planning Control - the reports of officers inspecting the properties listed on the schedule in respect of which consideration is to be given to the enforcement of planning control.
6. DELEGATED DECISIONS - INFORMATION ITEMS
6.1 (Chief Executive) Schedules of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning Services under delegated powers since the last meeting of a Plans Sub-Committee may be inspected in the Members' Room or at Planning Services. Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' 18 September 2002
7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
7.1 Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 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.
7 .2 In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee. Two weeks' notice of non-urgent items is required.
8 . EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
8 .1 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 paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act indicated:
Agenda Exempt Information Item No. Subiect Paragraph Number
Nil Nil
8 .2 To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items which are confidential under Section 100(A)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 :
Item No. Subiect
Nil Nil
8.3 Paragraph 9 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require:
(1) All business of the Council requiring to be transacted in the presence of the press and public to be completed by 10.00 p.m. at the latest.
(2) At the time appointed under (1) above, the Chairman shall permit the completion of debate on any item still under consideration, and at his or her discretion, any other remaining business whereupon the Council shall proceed to exclude the public and press.
(3) Any public business remaining to be dealt with shall be deferred until after the completion of the private part of the meeting, including items submitted for report rather than decision .
Background Papers: Paragraph 8 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion: Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' 18 September 2002
(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 but does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information (as defined in Rule 10) and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.
Inspection of background papers may be arranged by contacting the officer responsible for the item . .r ~ ~ - ouEwsWr EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL John Gilben M.C.I,E.H. M.R.S.H. Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex, CM70 4BZ Tel. 01992 564000 Title SHELLEY COUNTY PRIMARY SCHOOL MILTON CRESCENT o pJ~
ematenal contained m tfus ppo reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map wit pennlsslon of the Contoller of Hof Majesty's Stationary. (c) Crown Copyright Unauthorlsed reproduction Infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or chril Proceedings. E.F.D.C . licence No. LA 077933 .
EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Committee: Area Plans Sub 'C' Date: 21 August 2002
Place: Shelley County Primary School, Ongar Time : 7.30 - 9.10 p.m.
Members Councillors R Morgan (Chairman), K Wright (Vice-Chairman), R Barnes OBE, Present: Mrs D Collins, J Harrington, D Jacobs, D Kelly, Mrs M McEwen
Other Councillors:
Apologies :
Officers R Bintley (Planning Services), G Brazendale (Policy Unit) Present:
21 . WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and outlined the procedures and arrangements agreed by the Council to enable people to address the Sub-Committee in relation to the determination of applications for planning permission .
22. MINUTES
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 24 July 2002 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record .
23. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Pursuant to the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct, interests were declared in the agenda items shown below:
(i) Bansons Lane, Ongar (Schedule Item 5.3)
Councillors R Barnes OBE, D Jacobs and K Wright each declared a personal interest by virtue of membership of Ongar Parish Council . They had determined that their interests were prejudicial, and indicated that they would leave the meeting during consideration of the report and take no part in the discussion and voting thereon.
(ii) 6 Kettlebury Way, Ongar (Schedule Item 5.4)
Councillors D Jacobs and K Wright each declared a personal interest in this application by virtue of knowledge of the applicant. They had determined that their interests were non-prejudicial, and that they would therefore remain in the meeting during consideration of the report, and participate in the discussion and voting thereon . Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' 21 August 2002
24. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
The Sub-Committee considered a schedule of planning applications .
RESOLVED :
That applications numbered 1-7 be determined as set out in the schedule attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes .
25. ENFORCEMENT ACTION
(a) Clock Tower Cafe, Budworth Hall, 215 High Street, Ongar
The Sub-Committee was informed that, without planning consent, a new entrance door had been installed at the entrance to the Clock Tower Cafe within Budworth Hall. It was noted that, because of the door's design and the materials used in its construction, it was detrimental to the architectural and historical interest of the Grade II listed building.
(Note: In accordance with Part 4, Paragraph 16 .5 of the Constitution, Councillor D Kelly requested his vote against the resolutions to be recorded).
RESOLVED:
(1) That the Head of Legal and Administration Services be authorised to issue a Listed Building Enforcement Notice to :
(i) Secure the removal of the new entrance door; and
(ii) Ensure its replacement by a door of which the design and materials are approved by the Local Planning Authority before installation (compliance period of six months) .
(2) That, in the event of non-compliance with the Notice, criminal and/or civil proceedings be commenced.
26 . DELEGATED DECISIONS
The.Sub-Committee noted that schedules of planning applications determined by the Head of Planning Services under delegated powers since the last meeting of the Sub- Committee could be inspected in the Members' Room or at Planning Services.
27 . STOCK FARM, MATCHING GREEN -REMOVAL OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (TP012/79)
(Note : The Chairman had determined, in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, that this matter should be considered at the meeting on grounds of urgency, to avoid delay until the Sub-Committee's next meeting on 18 September 2002).
The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Services which gave details of an application for the removal of TPO/2/79 in relation to seven Poplar trees at Stock Farm, Matching Green, and their felling and subsequent replacement with alternative, indigenous, varieties. Area Plans Sub-Committee'C' 21 August 2002
It was noted that the application had been submitted because of safety concerns relating to use of the dressage area adjacent to the trees, and the restriction upon modernisation proposals for the nearby riding facilities caused by the trees' location. The Sub-Committee took particular account of the specialist advice obtained by the applicant which indicated that the trees were in decline and could therefore be dangerous ; and the type of the proposed replacement varieties, which were considered to be more visually appropriate to their surroundings .
RESOLVED:
(1) That TPO/2/79, covering seven hybrid Poplar trees at Stock Farm, Matching Green, be removed, and the trees subsequently felled;
(2) That fourteen replacement trees of species, size and in positions to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, be planted within one month of the implementation of the felling hereby agreed, unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority; and
(3) That if, within a period of five years from the date of planting, any one of the fourteen replacement trees is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies or becomes seriously damaged and defective another tree of the same species and size of that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation .
CHAIRMAN
PLANS SUB COMMITTEE 'C' 21 AUGUST 2002
APPLICATION NO : EPF/1344/02 PARISH: THE RODINGS
SITE ADDRESS :
Hatchmans, School Lane, Beauchamp Roding.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
First floor side extension.
GRANTED SUBJECT TO:
1 . To be commenced within 5 years .
2 . Materials shall match existing .
2 . APPLICATION NO : EPF/1204/02 PARISH : HIGH ONGAR
SITE ADDRESS :
Oaklyn, Woolmongers Lane, High Ongar.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL :
First floor side extension .
WITHDRAWN AT OFFICER'S REQUEST TO ALLOW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION INTO BREACH OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' CONDITION .
3 . APPLICATION NO : EPF/990/02 PARISH : ONGAR
SITE ADDRESS:
Bansons Lane, Ongar.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Change of use of land to provide BMX/Skateboard play area.
GRANTED SUBJECT TO :
1 . To be commenced within 5 years.
2 . Erection of screen walls/fences.
3 . Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority.
4 . Submission of landscape details . PLANS SUB COMMITTEE 'C' 21 AUGUST 2002
5. Details of hedges to be retained.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the play equipment to be installed shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4. APPLICATION: EPF/1020/02 PARISH : ONGAR
SITE ADDRESS:
6 Kettlebury Way, Ongar.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
First floor front extension.
GRANTED SUBJECT TO :
1 . To be commenced within 5 years .
2. Materials shall match existing.
3. No further side windows without approval .
5 . APPLICATION NO : LB/EPF/1321/02 PARISH : ONGAR
SITE ADDRESS:
Clock Tower Cafe, Budworth Hall, 215 High Street, Ongar.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Retention of new entrance door to cafe in Grade II Listed Building.
REFUSED:
The new entrance door, by reason of its design and materials used, is detrimental to the central architectural and historic interest of this Grade II listed building, contrary to Policy HC10 of the Council's adopted Local Plan .
6 . APPLICATION NO : EPF/154/02 PARISH : STANFORD RIVERS
SITE ADDRESS:
1 Little Colemans, Romford Road, Stanford Rivers. PLANS- SUB COMMITTEE 'C' 21 AUGUST 2002
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Erection of a boundary wall .
GRANTED SUBJECT TO:
1 . To be commenced within 5 years.
2. Materials of construction to be agreed .
3. The proposed boundary wall shall be erected clear of the publicly maintainable highway.
4. A sample panel minimum 1 metre square shall be constructed for approval by the Local Planning Authority prior to carrying out the works.
5. Details of gates including design, materials and finish shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to carrying out any works.
6 . The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plans received on 24 May 2002.
7. Details of hedges retained .
a 7. APPLICATION NO : EPF/780/02 PARISH : STANFORD RIVERS
SITE ADDRESS:
1 Clatterford End, Stanford Rivers.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Boarding cattery building at end of garden (revised application) .
REFUSED:
1 . The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposed works represent inappropriate development and are therefore at odds with Government advice as expressed in PPG2, the policies of the adopted Local Plan and the adopted Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan . The latter states that within the Green Belt permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use or extension to existing buildings except for the purposes of agriculture, mineral extraction or forestry, small scale facilities for outdoor participatory sport and recreation, cemeteries, or similar uses which are open in character.
2 . The proposed use would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties due to noise and general disturbance contrary to policies RP5 and DBE2 of the adopted Local Plan .
`ATTESTING v .-_FIGER
q
II
TI / T 3 : HOR56 C6EST T2 : 6EECH .
EP NGFOREST DISTRICT COUNCI ~j John Gilbert M.C .I .E.H. M.R.S .H . , i! Head of Environmental Services i! Civic Offices, High Street ii Epping, Essex, CM1648Z 1'. Tel. 01992 564000. --- I: Title , Hoggz Farm, Matching Tye , TPO/EPF/041 o'2-
rDate i81612002 ;, Scale 1 :1,250 -has been ' -The materiaPcontained irrthisplot I . reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with Majestys !1 permission of the Controller of Her :' Stationery, (c) Crovm Copyright. Unauthorised I: reproduction infringes Crovm Copyright and -12- I may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings . E.F .D.C. licence No . LA 077933. -_ APPENDIX 3
AREA PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE C -18 SEPTEMBER 2002
INDEX OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING
Page 1 . EPF/617/02 Common Farm, Stondon Road, High Ongar 14
2. EPF/1327/02 Rosemead, High Street, Ongar 18
3. A/EPF/1475/02 24-26 High Street, Ongar 22
4. EPF/1356/02 3 Primley Lane, Sheering 25
5. EPF/1492/02 Unit C, The Maltings, Lower Sheering 28 Road, Sheering 6. LB/EPF/1496/02 Unit C, The Maltings, Lower Sheering 31 Road, Sheering 7 . EPF/907/02 Traceys Farm, 26 London Road, Stanford 33 Rivers 8. LB/EPF/908/02 Traceys Farm, 26 London Road, Stanford 36 Rivers 9. EPF/1362/02 Burrows Farm, Clatterford End, Stanford 39 Rivers 10. EPF/680/02 Woodside Farm, Stapleford Road, 43 Sta leford Abbotts Breach of Control ~ 11 . PL 2677 Travelodge, Epping Road, Bobbingworth 50
G:\CWREAPLAN.C\71AUG-DEC .2002WPPENDIX 3- 18 SEPTEMBER 2002.doc Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level : Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/617/02 Report Item No: 1
SITE ADDRESS : PARISH : High Ongar COMMON FARM, STONDON ROAD, HIGH ONGAR
APPLICANT: Mr D. Padfield
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Change of use of existing barn and yard to light industrial and general storage .
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years.
Hours of work, deliveries and use of power generated machinery associated " with the site shall be restricted to: 8 .00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday 8.00 to 12.00 Saturday No work shall be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
3 . The rating level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the background noise level, determined to be 44.0 dB (A) by more than 5 dB (A) between the permitted hours of operation . The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises and measurements and assessments shall be in accordance with BS . 4142 :1997 .
4 . The buildings the subject of this permission shall only be used for uses within Classes B8 and B1 c of the Town & Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987.
Prior to any change of occupation, the specific occupiers and uses shall " be notified to the Local Planning Authority for approval.
6 . No external lighting shall be erected on site unless a scheme is firstly submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing prior to the installation .
Description of Proposal :
Continuation of use of part of existing barn for light industrial purposes (Class B1) and for the use of the rear section of the building for general storage . A section of the farm yard in front of the building is also used for open storage .
Description of Site:
Located some 200 metres away from Nine Ashes Road the site comprises a profile sheet clad barn which is positioned in a -IW- group of ex-agricultural buildings which comprise Paslow Common Farm . It is well sceened from the highway.
Relevant History:
None applicable to this part of the site .
Policies Applied :
Metropolitan Green Belt policies - especially GB8 relating to the change of use of buildings. T17 - Relating to traffic generation.
Issues and Considerations:
The main issues concern the acceptability of the proposed use in this Metropolitan Green Belt location, possible effect on the amenities of local residents and traffic related issues .
The application seeks to regularize a use which is currently taking place on the site - the use of the building having commenced at least a year ago. The front half of the barn is occupied by a metal worker who manufactures gates, railings etc. and who works from 9 .30 to 6 .00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays mornings. He is the only employee on the premises. The back portion of the building is used for general storage.
Neither of the current activities within the application site generate noise and disturbance, nor do they generate excessive traffic movements through the locality.
Whilst the planning application has generated a great deal of opposition to the proposal it is a fact that the uses which are currently taking place have not been the subject of complaints. In the circumstances so long as the activities do not generate excessive noise and disturbance, and minimal traffic movements the proposals accord with policy and are considered to be acceptable.
When planning permission was granted for the use of redundant farm buildings at Paslow Hall farm it was made-the subject of conditions which restrict hours of operation, noise levels from the site and restricts occupation to named occupiers etc. These limitations work quite effectively and are considered suitable for the application site .
The proposals are considered to be acceptable and accordingly the application is recommended for conditional approval .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - Object to the application and support the objections made by local residents. Concerned about possible uncontrolled use of the site and overdevelopment .
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS INCLUDE OBJECTIONS ON THE BASIS OF :- 1 .Noise and pollution . 2 .Traffic generation - heavy lorries and further damage to the -IS- local roads. 3.Danger to pedestrians having to walk in the roadway where "- there are no footpaths . 4.Use is unacceptable in this green belt and semi-rural area.
150 NINE ASHES ROAD . 173 NINE ASHES ROAD . 202 NINE ASHES ROAD . 207 NINE ASHES ROAD . 214 NINE ASHES ROAD. 215 NINE ASHES ROAD. 219 NINE ASHES ROAD. 242 NINE ASHES ROAD. 243 NINE ASHES ROAD. 244 NINE ASHES ROAD. 247 NINE ASHES ROAD. 248 NINE ASHES ROAD. 253 NINE ASHES ROAD. 254 NINE ASHES ROAD. 276 NINE ASHES ROAD. 280 NINE ASHES ROAD. 8 NINE ASHES ROAD. 4OPO NINE ASHES ROAD. LONG ACRE, NINE ASHES ROAD . ONE SPARKS FARM, NINE ASHES ROAD . RATCLIFF HOUSE, NINE ASHES ROAD. LITTLE BROOKFIELD, PASLOW COMMON. ROOKERY COTTAGE, ROOKERY ROAD. 8390
Paslow Common a Farm
7686
I ~v Wood I c' nmon
Water
/
O
IV O
8077
ODN Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM16 4BZ Garage Tel. 01992 564000
Title
ne olnt oradu[ed from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majestys StationeryI. (c) Crown Copyright. Unavthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to proseation or civil proceedings. II E.F .D.C . licence No . LA 077933 Scale 1 .1 250 1 Date 6/9/2002 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC .AID For Committee meeting on : 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level : Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/1327/02 Report Item No: 2
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: Ongar ROSEMEAD, HIGH STREET, ONGAR
APPLICANT: Mr Jarvis
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Construction of a driveway and vehicular crossover.
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years .
2 . No vehicle is to be parked on the crossover green area at any time . " 3 . Surface material of the driveway, crossover and parking area shall be agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development.
Description of Proposal :
The proposal is for the construction of a vehicular crossover. The proposal also entails the creation of a new pathway and driveway within the front of the property.
Description of Site :
The site is a right-handed dwelling of a pair of 1970s built Wmi-detached houses . There are four similar dwellings in this part of the High Street, which is located close to the junction with Bowes Drive. The site is located on the western side of the High Street, and is set well back from the road . Between the site and the road is a section of highway verge .
At present, there is no means of vehicular access to the front of the property, or any of the four dwellings in the vicinity, although there is access to the rear where garaging is provided .
Planning History:
EPF/825/00 - Vehicular crossover and drive - Refused - 11 September 2000 .
Policies Applied :
DBE9 - Amenity considerations. T17 - Highway safety. Issues and Considerations :
There are two key issues, the first of which is the impact on highway safety and secondly, the impact the proposal will have on the street scene and the area in general .
The impact on highway safety, and whether the crossover is agreeable under T17 of the Local Plan is of prime importance with this application. Essex County Council Highways has found no objections to this proposal since the reason for refusal of the last planning application (reference : EPF/825/00) - that there was a lack of turning provision for vehicles within the site - has been overcome . Two conditions have been required from County Highways, stating that no vehicles should be parked on the crossover "area" and the "green" since it would have the effect of blocking sight lines. Secondly, the surface material of the driveway/parking area is to be agreed with the Local Authority. On this basis, the proposal is acceptable under T17 and no safety issues are raised .
"Rosemead" is located close to a narrower section of the verge and as such, the undertaking of this action would not cause excessive detriment to this feature . The applicant is willing to use a surface that will not cause any undue implication to the overall view of the "green" .
The applicant has stated that the reason for the crossover is due to family circumstances: the birth of a disabled child . The child was born with Downs Syndrome and as a consequence of the disibility, the child has difficulty in learning to walk. The applicant states that access to the front of the property will assist day to day life .
In the light of the fact that the last application (Reference EPF/825/00), which sought a similar crossover was refused only on the basis of the lack of a turning space and this is now rectified, there is no reason to further withhold consent. On the bases of the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: PARISH COUNCIL - Object. The Council reiterates the comments made with regard to the previous application : 1 . The egress is too near a busy junction, Bowes Drive/High Street, causing a danger to pedestrians. 2. The damage to the grass verge would alter the visual impact of the entrance to the Bowes Drive Estate. 3 . These properties in this area of the High Street already have rear access and garages making this application unnecessary. 4 . Granting of this application would set an unacceptable precedent in this area of the High Street. In addition, the Council would like to express concern that thesight lines towards the old Station entrance restrict the view of emerging traffic and raise highway issues . "BRAEMAR", HIGH STREET - No objections, hope for a favourable response to the application . "CROFT COTTAGE", HIGH STREET - I object to the proposal. I feel that another direct access to the High Street would be an unnecessary danger. The sight lines are not good . The -t9- crossover will be over two pathways and a grassed area, the loss of which would be detrimental to the community. - ::r;r.-a "FOXHALL, HIGH STREET - Object - To cut a slice through the grass verge will encourage others to have easy access to parking on the grass. Driving and reversing on to the main road so close to Bowes Drive is surely a danger. ~~1~~~.~~1§I~RI CT COUNCIL Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM16 4BZ Tel. 01992 564000
Tide
contained in this Dior has been mduced from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery . (c) Crawn Copyright . Unaothonse reproduction infAnges Cro+n Copyright and may lead 10 prOsectitiott or civil proceedings . E .F .O .C . licence No . LA 077933 Scaie ct25e 6512002 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level : Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : A/EPF/1475/02 Report Item No: 3
SITE ADDRESS : PARISH: Ongar 24-26 HIGH STREET, ONGAR
APPLICANT: Ongar Bridge Motors
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Display of fascia sign with backlit lettering (450mm x 5m).
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . The lighting provided shall be non-intermittent .
2 . The maximum luminance of the sign(s) granted consent by this Notice " shall not exceed 1200 candelas per square metre.
Description of Proposal:
Sign will comprise black letters on a white background . Each letter will be individually backlit.
Description of Site:
Motor car showrooms and forecourt located at the southern end of the High Street, alongside Cripsey Brook.
Relevant History:
*he last application for advertisements on the premises was in 1991 and proposed various signs relating to the use of the site as a petrol filling station. This was approved .
Policies Applied :
DBE13 relating to the display of adverts. HC6 and HC7 relating to development in Conservation Areas.
Issues and Considerations:
The main issues concern the effect the development might have on the character of the Conservation Area . This will be the only illuminated sign on the premises and therefore there is no clutter that would detract from the appearance of the site, and it will not be out of keeping with the building which is the subject of a modernisation programme .
The proposed sign will be confined to approximately 20% of the fascia length consequently it will not be overdominant in relation to the site. In addition being within the town centre there are no objections to the provision of illumination
-21- to the advert - (this accords with policy DBE13) .
There are no objections from the Conservation Area adviser and therefore the application is recommended for approval .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: PARISH COUNCIL - Object to the proposal which will be out of keeping with shopfronts in the Conservation Area . CrcaoH~CTE Head o( Environmental Services CiviC Offoes, High Street Epping, Essex. CM164BZ Tel. 01992 564000
Tide
r^" marnd~ t.=.. - n from an Orenance Survey map w'itn pennission the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery. (c) Crewn Copyright UnaulnorisM reprooudion infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to proseaution or civil Proceedings. E .F .D.C . litente No . LA 077933 Ca t:r2w 6I9/2003 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC .AID For Committee meeting on: 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : EPF/1356/02 Report Item No : 4
SITE ADDRESS : PARISH : Sheering 3 PRIMLEY LANE, SHEERING
APPLICANT: Mr P Forsey
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Erection of a part two storey part single storey rear extension and front porch .
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years.
Materials shall match existing. 46 3 . No further side windows without approval
4 . The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plans received on 15 August 2002.
Description of Proposal:
Two storey rear extension and single storey conservatory and front porch .
Description of Site :
Qemi detached ex-LA house built 1920 on a small banjo ul-de-sac with well screened rear garden backing onto Primley Lane .
Relevant History :
None.
Policies Applied :
Residential design criteria : DBE9 and 10.
Issues and Considerations:
1 . Effect on Amenity
The two storey extension is sited 2.25m from the common boundary with No . 5 to the south and will align with the present rear wall of that property, which itself is 2.35m from the same boundary, giving a gap between the two houses of 4 .6m. The extension is 3.35m from the shared boundary with No. 1 and
-26- clear of a 45 degree line from the nearest first floor window of that house, which provides an indication that there will be minimal adverse effects on either side of the adjoining properties. The conservatory has already been erected as 'permitted development'.
2. Design/Appearance
Originally submitted as a gable-ended extension, the amended plan is now finished in a hip, which is more in keeping with the hipped roof design of the main house and will reduce the overall bulk of the appearance of the building, as well as lessen any impact on the adjoining houses on either side.
As amended, the scheme is satisfactory and approval is recommended.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: 1 PRIMLEY LANE - (Original plan) - Reduction of light to back bedrooms and lounge; impact on garden and patio; reduction of sunlight ; worried about sewage situation as previous problems . 5 PRIMLEY LANE - (Original plan) - Not enough information about services, water, electric, drainage; front porch too large, reducing light. ~°Qa=~
aPRW,.-, Q;eFYn~ lJll1V Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM7648Z Tel. 01992 564000
from an Ordnance Survey map ~In permission of me Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery. (c) Crovm Copytight . UnatabOnsec! reproduction intringes Crown Copyright anal may lead to prasecution or cNil proceedings . E .F.D.C . licence No. LA 077933 691700 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC .AID For Committee meeting on : 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : EPF/1492/02 Report Item No: 5
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH : Sheering UNIT C, THE MALTINGS, LOWER SHEERING ROAD, SHEERING
APPLICANT: Reedside Limited
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Provision of 4 velux windows (2 to roadside and 2 to riverside elevations).
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Refuse
1 . The provision of 4 velux windows would disturb the original simple roof planes to this range of the Grade II Listed Building, and as such would harm its historic and architectural character and appearance, contrary to " Policy HC10 of the adopted Local Plan.
Description of Proposal:
Provision of 4 velux type windows (2 to roadside and 2 to riverside elevations).
Description of Site :
Three storey brick built Grade II Listed Building situated to the south of Station Road, and to the west of the railway. The building dates from the late nineteenth century and was listed as part of a group in 1975 . The building has been divided into merous commercial/business uses . OU
Relevant History:
The Maltings site has an extensive planning history, for changes of uses, alterations to external and internal appearances and advertisement consents . The most recent and relevant to this unit being: EPF/1615/01 - Proposed change of use to offices and provision of two dormers to front and rear elevations - Refused . LB/EPF/1517/01 - Listed building application for two dormers to front elevation, two dormers to rear elevation, enlarge two window openings and insertion of mezzanine floor - Refused. EPF/164/02 - Proposed change of use of offices - Approved LB/EPF/506/02 - Grade II Listed Building Application for new first floor offices including replacing existing mezzanine floor and internal alterations - Approved 26/O6/02 .
Relevant Policies :
HC10 Works to listed buildings HC12 Works affecting the setting of listed buildings Issues and Considerations:
The main issue is whether the proposed alterations would harm the character and/or appearance of the listed Maltings .
The Maltings as a whole group were listed in 1975 as a result of a recommendation by the then architectural historian Cecil Hewitt of Essex County Council who in his survey of the buildings noted particularly that these buildings had impressive simple roofs and elevations, and very good roof joinery .
Photos provided by Essex County Council from c.1930 and c.1970 show kiln towers in units adjacent to the application unit, but no other interruptions to the roof. This is a characteristic of floor maltings buildings, where the floors are generally only lit by wall apertures originally fitted with louvres and later substituted by glass with often the upper floor open to the roof.
Usually when these buildings are extended this is achieved by the addition of new floors stacked above each other, however in the case of the application building additions were added to its length resulting in a long range of structures some of which were adapted to a variety of ancillary malting uses. Parts of the building incorporated dormers, particularly towards the southern end and a variety of alterations were made internally before its final redundancy as a malting and later sale .
The buildings were subsequently converted into separate commercial units and some of these units later further subdivided . Whilst these changes generally gained consent many alterations were carried out without the knowlege of the local authority and needless to say without the relevant consents. This has resulted in additional roof lights to the northern end of the building adjacent the current unit.
Planning and listed building applications were refused for dormers to this unit last year on the basis the scheme was unsympathetic to the listed building and included works that were considered harmful to the original fabric of the building . A second set of listed and planning applications allowed for the internal conversion of this part of the building to offices and acceptable works to provide internal partitioning, replacement mezzanine floor and other alterations to accommodate the office use .
With respect to this current submission advice from the Council's Historic Building Adviser expresses strong concern that the introduction of rooflights further clutters the simple roofscape and encourages more subdivision of units and further loss of open interiors to the overall detriment of the buildings character.
However, in view of the subdivision that has already occurred in this, and other units, it could be argued that the original internal character of the building has already been lost and it would be unreasonable to resist this logical request especially when a mezzanine floor for office use has been accepted by the Local Planning Authority recently . The majority of existing rooflights in this building are unauthorised . The Historic Buildings Adviser continues by- expressing concern over the cluttered and haphazard appearance which is compounded by the use of Velux rooflights which have an untraditional form and project above the slate finish . As such it is considered that by approving such visually obtrusive openings future enforcement action, should the local authority decide to act against those rooflights inserted without consent, would be made more difficult. Furthermore it could set a precedent for the further proliferation of rooflights and visual clutter on this roof, which would be further detrimental to the historic interest and architectural character and appearance of this Listed Building.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the advice of the Historic Buildings Adviser. However, Members may feel that given the sheer amount of alterations that have already been carried out on the Maltings building (authorised and unauthorised), that these additional rooflights would not result in such considerable harm to the fabric of the listed building to warrant refusal. If this view is taken members uld be encouraged to seek the use of a lower profile tinservation rooflight that would be more sympathetic to the overall appearance of the building .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: PARISH COUNCIL -Agree to this application on the condition that the property will not be used for a domestic dwelling .
Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC .AID For Committee meeting on : 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : LB/EPF/1496/02 Report Item No: 6
SITE ADDRESS : PARISH : Sheering THE MALTINGS, UNIT C, THE MALTINGS, SHEERING
APPLICANT: Reedside Ltd
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Grade II Listed building application for the provision of 4 no. velux windows .
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Refuse
1 . The provision of 4 velux windows would disturb the original simple roof planes to this range of the Grade II Listed Building, and as such would harm its historic and architectural character and appearance, contrary to " Policy HC10 of the adopted Local Plan .
Description of Proposal :
Grade II Listed Building application for the provision of 4 velux windows (2 to roadside and 2 to riverside elevations) .
Issues and Considerations:
This is the concurerent listed building application for the works described in the previous item.
The merits of the alterations are fully debated in the previous item and although the recommendation is for refusal, based upon the strong advice from the Historic Buildings adviser, members ay feel that the works are not so detrimental as to warrant qe0efusal as explained in the last item .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : None. Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM16 4BZ Tel. 01992 564000 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on : 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/907/02 Report Item No: 7
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: Stanford Rivers TRACEYS FARM, 26 LONDON ROAD, STANFORD RIVERS
APPLICANT: Mrs V Lawlor
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Change of use of two bams into two dwellings.
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years.
2 . The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended " plans received on 22 July 2002.
3 . Materials of construction to be agreed.
4 . Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed surface materials for the access and parking area shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed surface treatment shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development.
5 . Tree protection measures required .
6 . Submission of a landscape scheme.
Description of Proposal:
Residential conversion of two barns into two detached dwellings .
Description of Site :
Traceys Farm occupies an isolated location 450 metres off the main road . It comprises a listed farmhouse and a range of domestic outbuildings ; and two traditional blackboarded Essex bams which are listed in their own right.
Relevant History:
Planning permission was refused for the conversion of the barns in June 1998. The proposals were considered to be inappropriate and to detract from the character of the listed buildings. Policies Applied :
Metropolitan Green Belt policies GB2 and G88. HC10, HC12, HC13 - Relating to listed buildings, setting of Listed Buildings and conversion of barns. T17 - Highway related issues.
Issues and Considerations:
The main issues relate to the impact of the development on the Metropolitan Green Belt ; the effect on the listed buildings (there is a concurrent Listed Building application under consideration) and possible highway implications .
The buildings which form the subject of this application have previously been the subject of a scheme which was refused planning permission because the proposals would have seriously detracted from the character of the listed buildings . At that time the applicants showed that they had seriously considered alternative uses for the buildings. However, owing to their isolated location, shared narrow access road and proximity to the main farmhouse it was concluded that commercial uses for the barns would not be appropriate .
The current submission is also accompanied by a similar exercise whereby non-residential uses have been investigated prior to concluding that a residential use should be proposed . It is accepted that a non-residential use would have the least impact on the amenities of the adjacent farmhouse and that there is no prospect of them reverting to agricultural use as the surrounding farm land is now in separate ownership .
The buildings which form the subject of the application have been maintained to very high standards and are used solely for domestic storage by the occupiers of the main house . Not only are they in a good state of repair but they contribute to the setting of the main farmhouse.
Unlike the previous 1998 planning application the current submission shows a great deal more attention to the need to conserve the internal and external characteristics of the Listed Buildings . Sub-division of the interior of the buildings has been minimized as indeed have external changes . In principle the integrity of the buildings would be safeguarded by the proposed use. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with both Local Plan policy and the advice contained in Annexe D3 of PPG2 . These proposals have been referred to the Highway Authority for comment and no objections have been received to the use of the current access to serve the two new dwellings.
The Parish Council has commented on the planning application suggesting that restrictions be put on the site; and states their concern that because the farmland is worked that the buildings may not be redundant. In this regard it should be noted that because the buildings are listed they do not enjoy permitted development rights and therefore there is no need for a legal agreement. Furthermore these buildings have been separated from the farm holding for at least 5 years and have not been used for agricultural purposes - their loss to farming use has therefore already occurred .
This proposal accords in the Local Plan policy and is
-il~- therefore recommended for approval.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: PARISH COUNCIL - Object. It is felt that restrictions should be put on the site (section 106 agreement) and/or named planning consent and/or smaller units . It is noted that the farm is worked which would imply the barns are not redundant. What would be the implications if the current farmer were to retire or similar?
Epping Forest District Council Final Coma iittee Agenda DC .AID For Committee meeting on : 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level: Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : LB/EPF/908/02 Report Item No: 8
SITE ADDRESS : PARISH : Stanford Rivers TRACEYS FARM, 26 LONDON ROAD, STANFORD RIVERS
APPLICANT: Mrs V Lawlor
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Grade II Listed building application for the change of use of two barns into two dwellings.
RECOMMENDED DECISION : Grant Permission
1 . To be commenced within 5 years
" The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plans received on 22 July 2002.
3 . Materials of construction to be agreed .
Description of Proposal:
Residential conversion of two barns into two detached dwellings.
Policies Applied :
HC10, HC12, HC13 - Relating to listed buildings, setting of Listed Buildings and conversion of barns .
Tssues and Considerations :
The main issues relating to this proposal concern whether or not the development will detract from the character of these Grade II Listed Buildings.
The application has been the subject of ongoing negotiations between the applicants and the Historic Buildings adviser at Essex County Council. Revisions to the submitted plans have produced a scheme which has little impact on the outward appearance of the buildings ; and which will minimize the changes to the surroundings of the group of farm buildings.
It is intended that the barns be provided with independent curtilages, and be provided with walled gardens similar to that which served the original farmhouse.
Subject to the works being carried out in accordance with the amended plans there are no objections to Listed Building consent being granted . SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: None. FRR&&GnF,lG.YARI§IiRfc COUNCIL Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM1648Z Tel. 01992 564000
it= an Ordnance Survey map win permission of the ConVOller of Her Majesty's Stationery. (c) Crovm Copyright. Onaupior:sea reproduaion infringes Crown Copyright ario my lead to prosecution a civil proceeoings . E.F .D .C . licence No . LA 077933
Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on: 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level : Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No : EPF/1362/02 Report Item No : 9
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH : Stanford Rivers BURROWS FARM, CLATTERFORD END, STANFORD RIVERS
APPLICANT: Mr B Parmenter
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL : Stationing of mobile home .
RECOMMENDED DECISION: Refuse
1 . The proposal would result in the introduction of an inappropriate development on this site, which is included within the Metropolitan Green Belt, wherein there is a general presumption against inappropriate development (such as mobile homes to be used in connection with horse " keeping), in order to preserve the openness and rural character of the Green Belt. The proposal is also at odds with Policies GB2 and GB5 of this Council's adopted Local Plan .
Since the mobile home has been placed on the land authority for ENFORCEMENT ACTION is RECOMMENDED to ensure its removal and in the event of non-compliance the necessary legal proceedings . Time for compliance : 3 months.
Details of Proposal :
Retention of a mobile home to provide ancillary facilities in association with the existing horse keeping and grazing uses on the land. qescription of Site :
The site is situated in the rural surroundings to the east of the small village of Toot Hill in an area characterised by rolling countryside with small copses and hedgerows defining field boundaries .
The application site comprise a field of about 4.25 hectares, which lies on the northern side of Toot Hill Road with a shared vehicular access with the adjoining property to the east that is known as Hawthorns . Most of the land is used for grazing and a number of Shetland Ponies are kept in paddocks that are arranged on the western side of the site . Towards the east is a small and unobtrusive stable block near the eastern boundary. Along the front and eastern boundaries are mature tree belts that screen the site from distant views and from the road .
Relevant History:
EPF/619/96 - Erection of stable block - Approved 25.6 .1996 EPF/602/98 - Erection of stable block - Approved 24.8.1998 EPF/332/99 - Erection of stable block (revised siting) - -39- Approved 04.06 .1999 EPF/347/00 - Erection of four poly-tunnels for mushroom cultivation - Dismissed on Appeal 07.06.2000 EPF/348/00 - Mobile home for agricultural worker - Dismissed on Appeal 07.06.2000
Policies Applied :
Policy GB2 - General restraint in the green belt Policy GB5 - Non-permanent dwellings in the green belt Policy GB7 - Development conspicuous from the green belt Policies DBE9 - Amenity Considerations
Issues and Considerations :
The main issues relating to this proposal are whether the proposal is acceptable within the Green Belt, the potential impact of the proposed extension on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and the appearance of the resulting development.
The proposal by its very nature constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The purpose of the caravan is to provide ancillary facilities in connection with the use of the land for horse keeping and at times it is necessary to provide round the clock surveillance and care to the animals especially when the mares are foaling . However, it is considered that these factors do not constitute very special circumstances that could warrant the approval of an inappropriate use in the Green Belt. Furthermore, the mobile home is not considered essential for the keeping of horses as a recreational/leisure use.
Concern is expressed from nearby residents that the siting of the mobile home is not a temporary arrangement and that there are no special circumstances for a permanent dwelling, and objections on the basis that the proposal is contrary to Policy GB5 and is unacceptable in the Green Belt.
It is clear that it is not the applicants intention to use the mobile home on a permanent basis as, upon inspection, it was packed with hay bales. It is considered however, that by allowing this use an unwanted precedent would be set that would be difficult to resist in future should other properties apply for the same . The applicant's intentions seem honourable and genuine, however future pressure may arise for a more permanent dwelling on-site with this established use for which the same . argument can be applied in terms of need .
The mobile home does not occupy a visually prominent position, as it is screened from the east through a mature tree belt and partly by the stable block to the west. Furthermore, neither the mobile home or the stables can be seen from the road, as it is also screened by mature trees to the south and only becomes visible at short range when approached from the south along the driveway. However, in terms of PPG2 and Policy G82 it is considered that the need for the mobile home is not reason enough to warrant such an inappropriate use in the Green Belt.
In conclusion it is considered that given the inappropriateness of the use and despite the limited impact that it would have on -40- the openness of the Green Belt, on balance it is unacceptable, as it would set an unwanted precedent and future pressures-' ' might arise for a more permanent dwelling in this Green Belt location .
On the basis of the above this application is recommended for refusal .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - Objection. It would seem this is not a temporary arrangement and 'no special circumstances' for a permanent home . CLEMENTS FARM, TOOT HILL - Objection . The erection of a mobile home is contrary to Policy GB5 and is unacceptable in the Green Belt. There are no valid reasons for having the mobile home on site . One of the stables could be converted to provide the necessary facilities and the applicant is under no pressure to raise the ponies on site and if it is claimed that the mobile ~me is necessary to look after the animals it is ggested that the animals should be moved to an alternative location. If the application is refused, enforcement action should be taken to ensure the removal of the mobile home . from an Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery . (c) Crown Copyright. UnaWhonsed reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. E.F .D .C. licence No . LA 077933 Epping Forest District Council Final Committee Agenda DC.AID For Committee meeting on: 18/09/2002 PCR2/1 .8 Decision Level : Development Committee and Plans Sub-committee
APPLICATION No: EPF/680/02 Report Item No: 10
SITE ADDRESS: PARISH: Stapleford Abbotts WOODSIDE FARM, STAPLEFORD ROAD, STAPLEFORD ABBOTTS
APPLICANT: Mr W Ayres
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Change of use to residential for a gypsy and his family with stationing of one mobile home and a touring caravan.
RECOMMENDED DECISION: Refuse
1 . The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposed works represent inappropriate development and are therefore at odds with Government advice as expressed in PPG2, the policies of the adopted Local Plan and the adopted Essex & Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure 0 Plan . The latter state that within the Green Belt permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use or extension to existing buildings except for the purposes of agriculture, mineral extraction or forestry, small scale facilities for outdoor participatory sport and recreation, cemeteries, or similar uses which are open in character. In the view of the Local Planning Authority the application does not comply with these policies because there is no justification for the retention of the mobile home for occupation by a gypsy and his family .
2. The proposal makes, inadequate provision for the retention of existing planting in and around the site and for new planting contrary to the requirements of Policies LL10 and LL11 of the Approved District Local Plan.
qescription of Proposal:
Retention of mobile home and touring caravan for use by a gypsy and his family .
Description of Site :
Located just inside the entrance to the site, on the left hand side is a stable block . Behind this is the mobile home and touring caravan behind which are two concrete framed barns . On the right hand side of the site and facing the mobile home is an open paddock.
Relevant History:
Stationing of a mobile home for an agricultural worker was granted on appeal in 1986 for 5 years. Renewal of planning permission refused and enforcement action authorized in June 1993 - an appeal against this decision was upheld and temporary planning permission granted for 2 years in 1994 . Outline application for permanent dwelling refused in January 1997 and
-43- June 1997 - inadequate justification - an appeal against the second refusal was dismissed - the Inspector concluded that the appellant had brought calves onto the site to justify the agricultural claim .
In June 1996 enforcement action was authorized to secure the removal of the mobile home . On 12 January 1999 planning permission was yet again refused for the retention of the mobile home and the subsequent appeal in respect of the refusal was dismissed on 6 December 1999.
An injunction has been served requiring the removal of the mobile home but this is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the planning application.
Policies Applied :
Metropolitan Green Belt Policies G132 and G135 . H11 - relating to gypsy caravan sites. LL10, LL11 (landscaping)
Issues and Considerations:
The main issue in dealing with this application is whether the dwelling is considered appropriate in the Green Belt and whether there are any very special circumstances which would overcome the Green Belt objection. Residential development in the Green Belt for non-agricultural or forestry purposes is by definition inappropriate and therefore harmful to the Green Belt. The development is therefore contrary to policies GB2 and GB5 of the Adopted Local Plan and National Planning Policy Guidance PPG2. Moreover, in the past there have been appeals in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 and 1999 in respect of the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for an agricultural worker. These appeals were unsuccessful .
In respect of an enforcement appeal in 1999 for a mobile home for human habitation in which it was being claimed that it was for an agricultural workers' home the Inspector commented :
"There is nothing to suggest that a sustainable agricultural enterprise is operating at Woodside Farm. There is no indication of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned, or that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis . Criterion (a) and (c) are not met. In my view nothing material has changed since my colleague concluded that this was a possible case of abuse of the planning system. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a case where the system has been abused over many years."
In terms of its setting and layout the proposal makes no adequate provision for landscaping or fits into the rural landscape. In this regard it is contrary policies LL10 and LL11 of the Adopted Local Plan . It is also contrary to policies CS2, CS4, and NR1 of the Structure Plan.
The Council does not accept that Mr. and Mrs. Ayers are gypsies. At no time when this or all the other appeals were under consideration did the applicant suggest that a gypsy status applied to his circumstances . Indeed with the two last appeals when he was represented by two experienced planning consultants (one specialising in gypsy work) the issue of gypsy -4-t - status was not even raised.
There do not appear to be any material changes in planning circumstances since the previous decisions refusing planning permission or upholding the enforcement notice . This latest application appears to repeat avenues that have already been explored by the appellant in an attempt to gain planning permission for inappropriate use in the Green Belt and rural landscape.
Inadequate evidence has been provided to support the claims that very special circumstances exist which justify a departure from Green Belt policies and policy H11 of the adopted Local Plan .
Gypsy Status Considerations
Notwithstanding that the Council does not accept Mr. Ayers gypsy status, as the application is for residential accommodation for a gypsy and his family the application has also been considered in the context of policy H11 which ecifically considers gypsy accommodation . 0 There are six locational criteria to be taken into account in policy H11 . The application does not meet criterion (a), (c), (e) or (f) in that it is an isolated location far away from shops, medical and other facilities. It has a significant impact on the environment and the appearance of the countryside. It is not in close proximity to an area frequented by gypsies . The application is therefore, contrary to policy H11 of the Adopted Local Plan and H6 of the Structure Plan .
The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000 and is also a relevant consideration in this case.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights now incorporated in UK law, concerns the right to respect for private and family life and a home. Article 1 of the First Protocol relates to the protection of property.
4k refusal of planning permission in this case may amount to an interference with the applicant's Human Rights and those of his family. The Inspector dealing with the enforcement appeal in 1999 did consider the Human Rights issues relating to the applicant at that time . He commented at paragraph 18:
"Dr Kenrick referred to the case in the European Court of Human Rights of Buckley v UK . He said it was necessary to balance the harm caused by a temporary planning permission against the disruption to family life that would result if Mr. Ayers were required to leave the site . With regard to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights I acknowledge that the dismissal of the appeal may result in an interference with the home and private family life of Mr. Ayers . However, that interference must be balanced against the legitimate aims stated in Article 8 . The issues concerning the development, which has taken place on the site, are serious ones. The public interest can only be safeguarded by the cessation of the use . The increase in the compliance period to six months should give sufficient time for the Mr. Ayers to find alternative accommodation for his family. In all the circumstances, I consider that the enforcement action taken is necessary in a democratic society, and the action does not -4~- place a disproportionate burden on the appellant. I therefore consider that the dismissal of the appeal would not result in a violation of the rights of Mr. Ayers and his family under Article 8 of the convention ."
This appeal decision was issued on 6 December 1999 and even with the extended compliance period Mr. Ayers still remains on site in breach of planning control . Nevertheless, officers did give Mr. Ayers an opportunity to present any very special circumstances or human rights considerations in relation to this application . A questionnaire was sent to him in order to enable those issues to be taken into account.
The questionnaire states that the following occupy the site William Ayers (aged 62 years); Margaret Coles (aged 59) ; Annabelle Ayers (23 years old), and, Elizabeth Ayers (aged 20 years). It states that Elizabeth attends Salford University studying Arts and Media . It states that there are no special educational requirements for the children who are adults in any event. It states that Mrs . Coles needs medication for her invalidity and attends the Debden Medical Centre .
In the questionnaire they state that they took up occupation of the site in 1982 however it was in that year that the Council considered a planning application proposing a mobile building for occupation by persons working on the site - this was submitted not by the applicant but by a Mrs. McLaren of Oakland Road, Romford (and refused planning permission). In addition in the questionnaire when it poses the question where did you live prior to taking up occupation of the site the applicant states Hainault (not giving a precise location). For at least the last 18 or 20 years the applicant has lived on the application site and for all of that time has until now claimed that he had to live on the site in order to maintain surveillance over the livestock he kept there. He could not therefore have been a traveller during this period and could not have been living a gypsy lifestyle . It is claimed in the questionnaire when asked about alternative accommodation that there are no "sites suitable for bringing up young children" . The questionnaire also states that "due to my wife's poor health it is impossible for me to follow the lifestyle of a traveller".
In the supporting information submitted with the application it is now stated : "He has attempted to settle down and run an agricultural business but was not able to get permission to live at the site. The recent foot and mouth epidemic has made it unlikely that he can revive this business even as a partial income ." It goes on to say "Mr. Ayers has been left with no alternative but to resume his earlier gypsy way of life . As a statutory gypsy he can have a base from which to travel for an economic purpose for part of the year".
This contradicts the information given my Mr. Ayers in his questionnaire .
None of the circumstances put forward by Mr. Ayers in the questionnaire or by his agent amount to very special circumstances. His daughters are grown up and in higher education . The medical circumstances in themselves are not unusual or require specialist medical attention, which cannot be met generally in the District or the wider locality . Notwithstanding that the Council does not accept Mr. Ayers' gypsy status in relation to the matter of alternative
-410- accommodation nothing has been presented as part of the application or in the questionnaire that the applicants have a "settled and immutable antipathy to conventional housing rooted in their gypsy culture." On the contrary accommodation has been declined in the past because it is unsuitable for the Ayers needs or not "suitable for bringing up young children". It is difficult to see how this is consistent with children aged 23 and 20.
It is concluded that there are no very special circumstances, which would warrant an exception to Green Belt policy .
Human Rights Considerations
If this planning application is refused and the Council continue iniunctive proceedings there will be the negative effect on the current home of the applicants . They have lived there for at least 18 - 20 years now. They will be required to leave it and seek new accommodation . This wilt be an interference with their right to respect for their home and family life . However, the harm to them must be balanced ~ainst the legitimate Article 8 objective of operating an lffective and equable system of planning control in the public interest. The very great and continuing harm resulting from the development in terms of the Green Belt is serious. The appellants have sought planning permission on several occasions throughout the period they have lived on the application site . On each occasion they have had the chance to appeal to an Inspector who is independant of the Council. Whenever they have appealed and an Inspector has considered the case it has been determined that it is not appropriate to grant permission and allow their residential occupation of the site to continue .
Despite the difficulties that will be caused to the applicants it is not considered that there are any appropriate reasons to relax the normal operation of the planning system and the development plan policies in this case. Although refusing permission and continuing proceedings in the High Court is likely to force the applicants from their home it is considered that these steps are proportionate and necessary to the tgitimate objective of operating the planning system in the ublic interest .
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS : PARISH COUNCIL - Strongly recommend refusal of planning permission. It is understood that the applicant is the subject of an enforcement order and should have left the site 2 years ago. This is the first time that gypsy status has been claimed . COUNCIL FOR THE PROTECTION OF RURAL ESSEX - Object to a further residential encroachment into the Green Belt. The site is capable of accommodating more mobile homes and caravans. If the application were successful what would there be to stop more coming onto the site? 1 GORDON COTTAGES, STAPLEFORD ROAD - Object to the development on Green Belt land . JAYSOM, TYSEA HILL - Surely this is a retrospective application? I object to the term Gypsy Family being used on the application. Does this mean by stating gypsy on the application it affects the way that the application is considered? Surely any family applying to build on Green Belt
-41- land will be treated the same? Object to the field being used for residential purposes . Surely using it for grazing and car boot sales is enough? DUN Head of Environmental Services Civic Offices, High Street Epping, Essex. CM16 4BZ Tel. 01992 564000
TNe I (D from an Ordnance Survey map with pemtission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery. (q C~ Copyright . UnavUrorised reproouction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings . E .F.D.C . licence No. LA 077933 -45 . Scale r:r.2eo w9rz002 Plans Sub: `C' Committee Date: 18"September 2002
PL: 2677
Site Address: Travelodge Epping Road Bobbingworth
Description of breach of planning control :
Without Planning Permission the failure to comply with Conditions 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Planning Permission EPF/1110/98, which state:
5. The triangular piece of land lying to the west of the site access shall be suitably landscaped in accordance with details that shall have previously been agreed by the Local Planning Authority and such landscaping shall be maintained thereafter.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to comply with the duties indicated in Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, so as to safeguard the visual amenity to be provided by the new landscaping and to ensure satisfactory appearance to the development.
6. No development shall take place until a plan has been submitted to and approved In writing by the Local Planning Authority, which shall show the existing hedge or hedges, which are to be retained, the minimum heights at which they will be maintained, details of any further planting, retention of trees to be allowed to grow on, and where appropriate, a timetable of operations. Thereafter the hedge or hedges shall be maintained in line with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site and to protect the appearance and character of the area.
7 . No development shall take place, including site clearance or other preparatory work, until all details relevant to the implementation of the hard and soft landscape works and tree planting, hereafter called the Landscape Method Statement, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall not commence until the Landscape Method Statement has been approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. All landscape works shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, unless the Local Planning Authority has given its prior written consent to any variation .
The Landscape Method Statement shall include as appropriate, protection of the planting areas, where appropriate by fencing, during construction ; preparation of the whole planting environment, particularly to provide adequate drainage; and the provision which is to be made for weed control, plant handling and protection, watering, mulching, and the staking, tying and protection of trees. The Landscape Method Statement shall also normally include provision for maintenance for the period of establishment, including weeding, watering and formative pruning, and the removal of stakes and ties. Provision shall be made for replacement of any plant, including replacement, that are removed, are uprooted, or which die or fail to thrive, for a period of five years from their planting, in the first available season and at the same place, with an equivalent plant, unless the Local Planning Authority has given its prior written consent to any variation.
All hard and soft landscape works shall be completed prior to the occupation or use of any part of the development, unless the Local Planning Authority has given its prior written consent to a programme of implementation. The hard and soft landscaping works, including tree planting, shall be carried out strictly in accordance with any approved timetable.
The Landscape Method Statement shall state the provision which is to be made for the supervision of the full programme of works, including site preparation, planting, subsequent management and replacement of failed plants.
Reason: To comply with the duties indicated in Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, so as to safeguard the visual amenity to be provided by the new landscaping and to ensure satisfactory appearance to the new development.
8. No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include all details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.
Reason : To comply with the duties indicated in Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, so as to safeguard the visual amenity to be provided by the new landscaping and to ensure satisfactory appearance to the new development.
Description of site:
Travelodge Hotel and Little Chef Restaurant situated on the northern side of Epping Road in the parish of Bobbingworth. Reasonably level site, occupying a prominent position on ridge of rising ground in a fairly open landscape.
Relevant history
EPF/399/88 Demolition of existing hotel and 27/06/88 construction of replacement hotel Approved
EPF/1110/98 Erection of 60 bed Travelodge and 01/11/99 60 seater Little Chef Approved
EPF/1535/98 Erection of illuminated sign 02/06/99 Dismissed (Appeal)
EPF/914/99 Erection of illuminated adverts 02/08/99 Approved
EPF/1591/99 Erection of car park and building lighting 16/02/00 Approved
EPF/1837/99 Pole mounted illuminated sign 31/01/00 Approved . : ,.wRe7y".. . .N't~.MO
EPF/2094/00 12 bedroom extension to Travelodge 02/02/01 and extension to car park Refused
EPF/1611/01 12 bedroom extension to Travelodge 16/11/01 and extension to car park Refused
Relevant policies
14 Enforcement policy
LL1 Conservation and Enhancement of Countryside
LL2 Development in the Countryside
LL11 Landscaping Schemes
Issues, considerations and reasons for action :
This is a prominent site in the green Belt and the importance of adequate landscaping to soften its impact on the surrounding area is reflected in the conditions' imposed when permission was granted .
The development to which the above conditions apply was substantially completed by March 2000 . By this time it would appear that efforts had been made to implement the planting scheme. A Landscape Method Statement was submitted and agreed by the Council, this detailed the subsequent management of the landscaped areas and replacement of failed plants for a minimum period of 5 years.
The councils landscaping officer visited the site in July 2000 and at this time it was already apparent that some of the planting had failed including the death of a number of trees. The landscaping officer expressed his concerns about lack of ongoing maintenance to the developers of the site but was unable to elicit a response.
To date several further approaches to the developers, the operators of the site and the site manager have been unsuccessful in securing compliance with the aforementioned conditions .
A recent site visit confirmed that the implementation of the landscaping scheme is not in accordance with the agreed plan in several major respects. Elements of the planting scheme, chiefly choice and size of species are incorrect and poor maintenance over the majority of the scheme has led to many failures. There is need for wholesale replacement of many areas of the scheme together with much better maintenance in accordance with the submitted method statement if the landscaping is to serve its intended purpose.
Condition 5 of EPF/1110/98 relates to an area of land to the west of the site that was used by the developers during construction of the hotel to store materials and plant. This is a triangular strip of land adjacent to the highway. It would appear that the required landscaping of this area has not been completed as an irregular bank of material remains, which is now covered in weeds . Given the above details it is clear that the breach of condition is contrary to those policies of the adopted local plan listed previously.
Recommended action:
It is requested that Authority be given for the Head of Legal Services to issue and serve a Breach of Condition Notice.
It is further requested that in the event that the breach of Condition Notice is not complied with, that the Head of Legal Services be authorised to commence criminal and/or civil proce3dings to secure compliance .
Sualaested period for compliance :
3 months. EPPING FOREST DISTR'4CT COUNCIL 0 0
" 3
O
i
"
Site Address Date 13/8/2002 Prepared By TRAVELODGE CRS EPPING ROAD A414 Scale 1 :1,250 BOBBINGWORTH I John GiIDert M.C .I .E.H . M.R .S.H . This copy has been produced specifically for Map Return Scheme purposes Head of Environmental Services only. No further copies may be made. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Civic Offices, High Street mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office. Epping, Esseu CM 16 4ez (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may I Tel. 01992 564000 lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. E.F.D.C. licence No. LA 077933 . supplementary agenda Epping Forest District Council
Committee: Area Plans Sub'C' Date: 18 September 2002
Place: Shelley County Primary School Time: 7.30 p.m. Milton Crescent, Ongar
Room: Community Room Committee G P Brazendale (Ext: 4532) Secretary:
7.1 'BIRCH FIELD', EPPING LANE, STAPLEFORD TAWNEY : TRAVELLER ENCROACHMENT
Recommendation:
That the Sub-Committee notes recent developments at this site and the course of action officers are pursuing.
Background:
7.1 .1 This site has recently been sold, believed to be to a Mr Quill igan, although the transfer documents have not as yet been submitted to the Land Registry. The authorised use of the site would appear to be domestic stables and the keeping of horses.
Unauthorised Development
7.1 .2 On Tuesday 3 September 2002 officers became aware that unauthorised works were taking place on the site, and immediately visited the site. When the workmen were questioned it was stated that a small hardstanding area was being created to assist in the handling of horses being brought onto the site from Ireland.
7.1 .3 Officers returned the following day when suspicions were heightened since this area of hardstanding was growing in size, and what appeared to be a roadway was being laid from the entrance to the site, through the field, giving access to the whole of the field. Enquiries supported the view that the occupiers of the site were travellers/ gypsies, who were preparing the site for human habitation .
Action To Date
7 .1 .4 On Thursday 5 September 2002, authority was granted under delegated powers for a High Court Injunction to be sought to pre-empt the unauthorised use of the site for human habitation by travellers/gypsies, and court papers were prepared . At the time authority was given there were no caravans on the site. Area Plans 'C' 18 September 2002
7.1 .5 During the course of that afternoon two caravans moved onto the site, although whether or not anyone was actually living in them is not known, and a planning application was deposited at these offices, for the use of the site as a gypsy caravan camp for 17 families. This application has been returned to the agent as invalid, with an explanation of information necessary to make the application valid, including details of any claims being made under the Human Rights Act.
7.1 .6 Officers secured the granting of an Interim Injunction on Friday 6 September 2002 that was served later that day, by which time an even larger area of land had been laid to hardstanding. There is no actual power attached to this Injunction to physically prevent anyone from breaching the terms of the Injunction. Officers would need to return to the High Court for fresh proceedings for'Contempt of Court'.
7.1 .7 Officers returned to the High Court on Monday 9 September 2002, when a full Injunction was granted, and this documentation was served on Tuesday 10 September 2002. By that time there were four caravans on the site.
Human Rights Act
7.1 .8 Officers have tried to engage the occupants in discussions about the inhabitants of the site on a number of occasions, in an attempt to establish what, if any, claims were being made under the Human Rights Act. Other than the names attached to the Injunction no other information has been forthcoming, and work is still progressing to hard surface the site in preparation Officers are told, for the 17 families to take up occupation week commencing 16 September 2002, including portable toilets for their use. In addition Officers have arranged for the refuse to be collected whilst the site is in occupation.
Further Action
7 .1 .9 Officers intend to return to the High Court as soon as possible for proceedings for 'Contempt of Court', although no date can yet be confirmed.
7.1 .10 The Chairman of the Sub-Committee has determined, in accordance with Section 100(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, that this matter should be considered at the meeting on grounds of urgency in order that members are informed about action already taken, and can consider future measures concerning the potential traveller encroachment at this site.