Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were none.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from all Members present.

New Harrow Local Plan – proposed version for pre-submission (Regulation 19 stage) consultation

Councillor Stephen Greek declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he worked for the Greater London Assembly, which oversaw planning policies in London.

Local Areas of Special Character – outcomes of consultation on the two proposed areas within West Harrow and Pinner

Councillor Christopher Baxter declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was the ward Councillor for West Harrow.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2024 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 17 July 2024 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To note any public questions received.

Questions will be asked in the order in which they were received.  There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for the asking and answering of public questions.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Thursday 3 October.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  1 public question was asked at the meeting.

Mike Wiliams asked the following question.

We note the overwhelming positive response to the West Harrow LASC consultation, but we also would draw your attention to the repeated concern voiced by the community that the micro clusters proposed for designation exclude much of the wider area which had an identical history and character. 

When this was first discussed at Cabinet it was introduced as the first phase.

Would the committee please now actively consider widening the area covered particularly as it is the area as a whole which creates the character the council is seeking to protect?

The question was answered by the Chair as follows:

‘This matter was addressed within the published report at section 6.12-6.17.

It was recognised that the proposed West Harrow Local Area of Special Character developed at a similar time to many of its surrounding streets and, like much of Harrow, these surrounding streets shared pleasing qualities that help make West Harrow an attractive place for residents to live in.  The local support received for the quality of these surrounding streets in West Harrow was valued and recognised.

The Local Area of Special Character’ designation was one that was required to meet National Planning Policy, Planning Practice Guidance, the London Plan and Historic England requirements that local heritage areas are clearly identified and evidenced in relation to exacting heritage criteria.  This was to ensure planning proposals can be weighed against this clear understanding of significance in relation to national and local planning policy.  The report sets out in detail how the proposed area for designation was evidenced to meet exacting designation criteria.  Should areas be designated that do not clearly meet these specific criteria, designation would undermine the value of the designation, such that its intention and purpose could not be fulfilled.  Consequently, whilst designation of the proposed area of West Harrow would bring some recognition to its surrounding streets for their associative historic value in any case as part of the setting of the area, it would not be appropriate to take these surrounding streets forward for designation in their own right.

Mr Williams asked the following supplementary question.

We believe that that evidence does exist and that those streets are pretty much in the same state as they were when they were originally built, which was about 120 years ago.  And we believe there is a case, in fact an overwhelming case.  And we absolutely understand the point about dilution.  We can't go designating areas which simply don't qualify.  But we believe that there is an overwhelming case that additional areas within West Harrow do qualify and we would like an opportunity to make that case.  And that would obviously be outside of this meeting, but to actually talk directly perhaps with officers and show you why we believe that to be the case. A nd that is all we're asking for.

The Chair, responded by stating that the officers had thoroughly considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

RESOLVED: To note that no petitions or deputations received.

The Head of Planning Policy and Chief Planning Officer gave a brief reminder of the purpose of the local plan and the reasoning behind its preparation.  It was noted that the local plan was a long process and document, and a recap of its objectives was provided.  The initial consultation earlier in the year was briefly reviewed, along with an update on the call for sites process.  Key risks in the local plan process going forward were also discussed.

The panel were reminded of the initial consultation process, highlighting changes made to the draft local plan since the panel last reviewed it.  Responses to the consultation, which ran from February to April, included statutory consultees, three petitions, and face-to-face engagement events.  Key concerns raised in the consultation were related to the spatial strategy, housing delivery, infrastructure, and tall buildings.

National and Regional Context

The Head of Planning Policy noted the passage of time since the current plan was adopted and that the new plan, covering 2021 to 2041, must consider updates to the National Planning Policy Framework and multiple versions of the London Plan since the current plan was adopted (further proposed reforms were covered later in the presentation by the Chief Planning Officer).

Key Changes to the Draft Plan

Several changes were made in response to stakeholder feedback, including new policies on inclusive design; safety, security and resilience to hazards; and basement development.  Updates were made to housing policies and clarifications on affordable housing, large-scale purpose-built shared accommodation, and heritage policies.  Amendments were also made to the transport, green infrastructure, and employment policies, reflecting feedback from consultees.

Site Allocations

Chapter 11 of the local plan, which addresses site allocations, was discussed.  The plan identified 41 potential sites for development, with 42 sites submitted through the call for sites process.  A total of 98 sites were considered, with some being excluded due to policy conflicts or size.  The plan allocated sufficient land to meet housing needs, with 17,000 homes identified, slightly exceeding the target for flexibility.

Key Risks

Risks highlighted included meeting London Plan targets, infrastructure delivery, and the implications of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.  Parking provisions and potential challenges from the Mayor of London were also noted as key concerns.

Chief Planning Officer made the following presentation.

Overview of Planning Reform

The Chief Planning Officer opened the session by highlighting the ongoing uncertainty in the planning sector, referencing recent policy announcements and proposals.  A ministerial statement from the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised that planning remained a local activity, but decisions must focus on delivering housing and infrastructure needs, rather than debating the necessity of such developments.

Draft Planning and Infrastructure Bill

A new draft Bill was expected in the next session of Parliament.

Key proposals included:

·                 Local authorities potentially setting their own planning fees.

·                 Reforms to the compulsory purchase order compensation scheme.

·                 Streamlining infrastructure delivery.

·                 Support for nature recovery in development funding.

·                 A new approach to strategic planning outside mayoral areas, including urban regeneration projects.

·                 Extension  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The Principal Conservation Officer presented the consultation responses regarding two areas proposed for designation as Local Areas of Special Character.  These areas were highlighted for their architectural and/or historical significance.  The consultation responses were detailed in Section 5 of the report, with additional details in Appendix 1 of the report.

The report recommended that the Panel supported the adoption of these areas and recommend them to the Cabinet.  The areas under consideration were shown in the attached map in the report.

The Officer explained that Local Areas of Special Character were a form of heritage designation based on local architectural and historic interest.  Criteria for these designations included architecture and landscapes that were locally distinctive, well-preserved, and of heritage interest.  Such areas must stand out from other parts of the Borough.

The consultation process ran from 8 July to 3 September 2024.  Key respondents included Historic England, the West Harrow Community Forum, and the Pinner Association.  In the case of Pinner, there was strong support for the designation.  Historic England and the Conservation Advisory Committee agreed that the proposals aligned with existing policy.  The Pinner Association provided additional documentation regarding the heritage value of Meadow Road.

While support for the designation was largely focused on preserving the area's design and heritage quality, there were also objections.  Some concerns centred on what the designation would mean for local properties.  One respondent raised the issue of properties on Meadow Road (specifically numbers 39 and 40) being mistakenly excluded from the map.  The Officer confirmed that these properties were mistakenly included in the list of proposed properties (and correctly left out of the area shown on the map), and letters were sent to the owners clarifying this and seeking any further comments.  With no response received within the designated two-week period, it was confirmed that the corrected list of properties would include only numbers 1 to 38 of Meadow Road (.

Other comments included concerns over the potential removal of granite curbs by the highways department, as well as requests to extend the designated area.  Support for the designation referenced the quality of Edwardian double-fronted houses and their historical significance, while objections raised issues related to housing supply and recreational space.

The Officer noted that the concerns were acknowledged but reiterated that the designation would not preclude future development, as any proposals requiring planning permission would be assessed in accordance with national and local heritage policies in the context of the designation.  The Officer also clarified that the designation does not equate to conservation area status.

For West Harrow, the Officer highlighted that the proposed designation was unlikely to impact housing supply and would not limit the potential of the recreation ground.  The Officer also addressed suggestions to broaden the designated area, noting that the matter was discussed at the start of the meeting and could be considered further.

The majority of respondents supported the designation of the proposed areas.

The formal identification of these areas as Local Areas of Special Character would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Presentation by the Head of Planning Policy on the Harrow Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL)

The Head of Planning Policy provided an update on the Harrow Community Infrastructure Levy (HCIL), covering receipts, allocation, and expenditure.  The report presented a breakdown of the HCIL, which consisted of two main elements:

Borough CIL

This was the larger strategic fund used to finance infrastructure projects, allocated through the capital program and informed by the local plan and infrastructure delivery plan.

Neighbourhood CIL

These represented 15% of the total CIL, with 10% allocated at the ward level, primarily based on requests from ward members.  Additionally, a 5% central pot was allocated through a bi-annual competitive bidding process for projects benefiting multiple wards or wards with limited CIL receipts.

The Head of Planning Policy reported that since 2013/2014, Harrow had received nearly £27 million in CIL receipts, with annual receipts averaging between £2 to £3 million.  Around £16 million had been spent, and £7 million was allocated through the current capital program, bringing the total to approximately £23 million in expenditure or allocation.

Regarding the Neighbourhood CIL, £355,000 was allocated for the last financial year.  Table 5 of the report provided a breakdown of historic receipts and balances needing to be allocated by the end of this financial year.  A correction was made in the report, noting that Table 4 should refer to Neighbourhood CIL balances as of the beginning of the financial year.

Ward-level projects, 32 projects were approved, with a total value of nearly £645,000.  £190,000 of these had been spent during the financial year, which included projects carried over from previous years.

The Central CIL pot, designed for projects benefiting multiple wards or wards with minimal receipts, had its first competitive bidding round last year.  Details of approved projects were listed in the report and appendix.

An internal audit was conducted to review the Neighbourhood CIL process, focusing on policy, allocation procedures, and project delivery.  The audit concluded a reasonable level of assurance, with several recommendations for improvement, including better community engagement, internal communication, and geographic allocation of funds.

The following questions were asked and answered.

The Panel expressed appreciation for the officers' hard work, praised the officers and economic development team for their efforts.

The Panel noted the challenge of spending remaining funds before the deadline and emphasised the importance of not rushing projects just to meet deadlines.  The Chair agreed and raised a point about the need for a more equitable distribution of funds across wards, particularly between those with high development and those with little.

The Chair proposed a recommendation for officers to review and create a more equitable funding system.  Cllr Baxter supported the idea of a more equitable distribution, citing the significant disparity in funding between wards and the need for a review by officers.

The recommendation was seconded and put to a vote.

The Panel wished it to be recorded that proposed recommendation was agreed by majority of votes.

Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Stephen Christopher Baxter and Zak  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.