Agenda and minutes

The Panel received a report of the Chief Planning Officer, which highlighted certain issues not covered in the report submitted to the Panel’s meeting held on 12 November 2003. The report before the Panel at its meeting held on 5 January 2004 accordingly suggested revised wording of Policies and Reasoned Justifications and for these to be brought forward as Proposed Modifications to the HUDP.  Those recommendations listed at paragraph 6 of the officer report were discussed at the meeting and, where appropriate, individual votes were taken.  Details of these are set out in Part II of the minutes below (Minute 75 below refers).  Following the votes, the majority of the revised wording of Policies and Reasoned Justifications set out in the officer report were agreed and in some cases, amendments made.  These are set out below:

         SCHEDULE 6 – CAR PARKING STANDARDS

·         Section on Car Parking Standards or Non-Residential Development:

It was unanimously agreed that the words ‘Maximum of 1 space per 10 bedrooms with separately designated parking for employees, visitors and customers’ under C2 Hospitals (see table in the report) should not be deleted;

[Note:  Cabinet, at its meeting held on 13 January 2004, was asked to add the bold and underlined point above which was inadvertently omitted from the Chief Planning Officer’s Report and was inserted after consultation with Councillors Marilyn Ashton and Burchell.]

         MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING

·         Section on Car Parking Standards for Residential Development (Class C3: Dwelling Houses)

It was agreed that the word ‘private’ had been erroneously included in the table and should therefore be deleted;

         H6: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND H7: HOUSING FOR KEY WORKERS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGET:

·         Section on Replacement Affordable Housing Policy H6

That the explanation from the Group Planner as to why the words ‘in perpetuity’ had not been included be noted and that the following wording be included for approval by Cabinet:

Insert before the final paragraph in the replacement Policy H6 the following wording:-

THE COUNCIL WILL ENSURE, THROUGH THE USE OF PLANNING OBLIGATIONS, THAT THE OCCUPATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS RESTRICTED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE REGARDED BY THE COUNCIL AS IN NEED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

Add at the end of the policy the wording:-

THE REQUIREMENT SET OUT IN THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS ABOVE WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MET IF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS TRANSFERRED TO A REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.

Within the reasoned justification, include the following wording based on paragraphs 6.36 - 6.38 in the draft replacement HUDP, in relation to occupation:-

Government guidance stresses the importance of retaining the affordability of housing units.  Therefore the Council will need to be satisfied that the affordable housing will be available for occupation by those defined by the Council as in need of such housing during the lifetime of the property.  The Council will seek the involvement of Housing Associations or RSLs in the management of affordable housing and by the use of Planning Obligations will ensure that developers transfer ownership of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Cabinet)

That the draft schedule of the Council’s Proposed Modifications to the Replacement HUDP be agreed subject to the inclusion of the recommendations set out under UDP Advisory Panel Meeting – Special – held on 12 November 2003 (Minute No. 66 refers) and recommendations 1 (above) and 3 (below) (UDP Advisory Panel Meeting held on 5 January 2004) and for these to be placed on deposit alongside the Statement of Decisions.  

Reason for Decision:  To expedite adoption of the replacement Harrow UDP after completion of all statutory procedures.

[Note:  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear did not support the recommendation in its entirety – Minute No. 75 also refers].

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Cabinet)

That the Council’s Statement of Decisions on the Recommendations contained in the Inspector’s Report be agreed subject to amendment of the comments under the headings ‘LBH Response’ and ‘Reason for Response’ on page 146 of the report relating to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, and the Statement be placed on deposit subject to the inclusion of the recommendations set out under UDP Advisory Panel Meeting – Special – held on 12 November 2003 (Minute No. 66 refers) and recommendations 1 and 2 (above).

Reason for Decision:  To expedite adoption of the replacement HUDP after completion of all statutory procedures.

[Note:  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear did not support the recommendation in its entirety – Minute No. 75 also refers].

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

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no Reserve Members in attendance at this meeting.

To receive declarations of interest (if any) from Members of the Committee arising from business to be transacted at this meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members of the Panel in relation to the business to be transacted at this meeting.

To consider whether any of the items listed on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded on the grounds that it is thought likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that there would be disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence or of exempt information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

RESOLVED:  That (1) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following agenda item be admitted late to the agenda by virtue of special circumstances and grounds for urgency detailed below:-

(2) all items be considered with the press and public present.

That the minutes of the Special meeting held on 12 November 2003, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Special meeting held on 12 November 2003, be confirmed as a correct record and that the signing of the minutes be deferred until printed in the next Council Bound Minute Volume (Vol. 7).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no public questions to be received at this meeting under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no petitions to be received at this meeting under the provisions of the Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 13 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no deputations to be received at this meeting under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

(Recommendation 1 above also refers).

Those recommendations listed at paragraph 6 of the report were discussed at the meeting and, where appropriate, individual votes taken.  Following the votes, the majority of the revised wording of Policies and Reasoned Justifications set out in the officer report were agreed and, in some cases, amendments made.  These are marked with an asterisk below.

A -     POLICY SH1 – HOUSING PROVISION AND HOUSING NEED

·         Section on Housing Provision and Housing Need

Note: (1)  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted against the deletion of the words ‘The Borough’s Residents’ and their replacement by ‘Prospective Occupants’;

(2)  It was moved and seconded that under criterion E and paragraph 2.81 the words ‘and some low cost market housing as part of a development on a site not suited in particular circumstances for rented provision’ be included after ‘and shared ownership’ accommodation, as suggested in the Inspector’s report (page 128, para 6.51).

Following a vote, this was lost; the Chair having exercised his second and casting vote.

(3)  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted for the motion set out in (2) above.

B -     T13 & SCHEDULE 6: PARKING STANDARDS AND T14 AND PARA 5.32: NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ON-STREET PARKING

·      Section on Replacement Policy T13

Note: (1) Councillor Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted against the inclusion of the word ‘maximum’ in the preamble of Schedule 6 and in the 6th line of paragraph 5.31 of the report;

(2)  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted against the inclusion of ‘The reduction in the number of parking spaces is a strong incentive to promoting and seeking alternative modes other than the car’ in paragraph 5.32.

C -   SCHEDULE 6 – CAR PARKING STANDARDS

·      Section on Car Parking Standards or Non-Residential Development:

Note: * (1) It was unanimously agreed that the words ‘Maximum of 1 space per 10 bedrooms with separately designated parking for employees, visitors and customers’ under C2 Hospitals (see table in the report) should not be deleted; (the addition of the bold underlined point above, which was inadvertently omitted from the Chief Planning Officer’s Report has been inserted after consultation with Councillors Marilyn Ashton and Burchell and Cabinet has been recommended to agree its inclusion).

(2)  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted against the inclusion of the word ‘maximum’ throughout the table.

·      Section on Exceptional Operational Requirements

Note: (1)  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted against the inclusion of the words ‘maximum level’ in the 2^nd paragraph).

D -   MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING

·      Section on Car Parking Standards for Residential Development (Class C3: Dwelling Houses)

Note: (1)  Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

(Recommendation 2 above refers).

(Recommendation 3 above refers).

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Panel received a report of the Chief Planning Officer, which provided the Planning Services end of year statement for 2002/03 and a commentary on the statement. In particular the report examined performance against key indicators and targets, the knock-on implications for the Planning Delivery Grant for 2004/05, and the implications regarding the ‘naming and shaming’ of the Council as a ‘planning standards authority’. The report also reviewed workload trends and the implications in all service areas of increasing numbers of applications, legislative changes and regional/sub-regional working.

Members noted that the report before them was for information only and that it had already been considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting held on 10 December 2003.

During the discussion which followed, a Member stated that it was regrettable that Harrow may not receive the much needed funding which was required to improve its performance.  She was concerned that Harrow was not being treated sympathetically by central government.  She praised the planning staff for having done an excellent job in the face of difficult circumstances.

The Chair also praised the work done by officers.

A Member stated that unless Harrow improves its performance, the Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) would be lost and that he would not want Harrow to go along the path of being ‘named and shamed’ as the worst performing local authority.

In response, the Chair suggested that a cross party Member-level meeting ought to be held to identify improvements that could be made when the report from the consultant commissioned by the Council, was available.

A Member stated that Members of the Development Control Committee should not be seen as having acted irresponsibly and that any such implications should be rebutted.  She added that Members were responsible to the electorate and had a duty to themselves, the planning team and residents and that it was not necessarily easy to make judgements.  She added that dealing with the increase in the number of planning applications for extensions to properties was in itself labour intensive and that the general increase in the number of planning applications received combined with the increase in the number of objections received from local residents had had a knock?on effect on performance as a whole.

A Member stated that the real problem had been with the recruitment/retention of staff over the past few years and that she was amazed that the consultant would be looking into the performance of Members.  She added that she was also surprised that the report had even been commissioned.

The Chair responded by saying that Members should not pre-judge the outcome of the report and that they ought to await the findings of the consultant.

In praising the staff in both Forward Planning and Building Control Sections for their dedication and commitment, a Member stated that the Development Control Committee should look at ways in which improvements made could be sustained.  He added that Building Control too had experienced problems with recruiting staff and that it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Councillor Kinnear, who had requested for this item to be added to the agenda (Minute No. 70 refers), stated that she was not satisfied that criterion E of policy D26 (on pages 122/123) of the replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan addressed her concerns and requested that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Panel by the Chief Planning Officer.

In response, the Chief Planning Officer stated that officers in Planning and Legal Services were satisfied that criterion E of policy D26 of the replacement HUDP was adequate and was consistent with the rulings of the Courts.  He stressed that health issues were a consideration where the public perception was that health considerations were legitimate reasons for refusing planning applications for telephone masts.

Councillor Kinnear referred to the research carried out on this issue and requested that a review of Harrow’s position with a report be submitted to the Panel’s next meeting.

The Chair stated that the existing Policy was adequate in dealing with such applications.

RESOLVED:  That the discussion, set out in the preamble above, be noted.

Members were advised that a special meeting of the Panel might be necessary should it not be possible for the report setting out objections to the proposed modifications to the HUDP Panel to be submitted to the scheduled meeting on 18 March 2004.  The 1 April 2004 was suggested and it was

RESOLVED:  That the Committee Administrator be requested to consult Members of the Panel on their availability and confirm the date in writing.