Agenda and minutes

The Director of Strategic Planning introduced the report which sought the Panel’s views on the status of the former Vaughan School as a locally listed building.

During the discussion on the report, the following issues were raised:

·         Some Panel members stated that the costs given for refurbishment of the building seemed excessive.

·         A Panel member expressed the view that the building was of architectural and historical importance and that de-listing it would give a signal to developers that Harrow did not wish to preserve such buildings.  In response, another Panel member stated that de-listing the building would not automatically lead to its demolition.

·         A number of Panel members agreed that the issue was complex but that, in the particular circumstances of the Vaughan Centre, de-listing seemed the most appropriate course of action.

It having been moved and seconded that the building be de-listed, a Panel member proposed that the wording of the Recommendation be amended to capture the Panel’s concerns that the de-listing of the former Vaughan School should not set a precedent for further de-listing of locally listed buildings.

Having been put to a vote it was

Resolved to RECOMMEND: (to the Portfolio Holder for Property, Housing Planning (Development) and Planning (Strategic)

That (1) the former Vaughan School building be de-listed in view of the specific circumstances outlined in the report of the Director of Strategic Planning, and

(2)  the de-lisiting of the building should not set a precedent and any future application for de-listing should be judged on its merits.

[REASON:  To provide clarity and certainty in developing proposals for the future of the site and building].

[Notes:  (i) Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Camilla Bath, Robert Benson and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted for the above decision;

(ii) Councillors Keith Ferry, Thaya Idaikkadar and Navin Shah wished to be recorded as having voted against the above decision;

(iii) during the discussion on the above item it was moved and seconded that the Recommendation be made to Cabinet rather than the Portfolio Holder.  Having been put to a vote, this was not carried;

(iv) Councillors Keith Ferry, Thaya Idaikkadar and Navin Shah wished to be recorded as having voted for the motion set out under (iii) above;

(v) Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Camilla Bath, Robert Benson and Mrs Kinnear wished to be recorded as having voted against the motion set out under (iii) above].

The Director of Strategic Planning introduced a report which outlined a draft response to the Government’s proposals to extend the Mayor of London’s powers in relation to planning.

All Panel members were in agreement that strong representation should be made against the Government’s proposals.  During the discussion on the report, the following issues were raised:

·         The determination of planning applications by the Mayor should be held in public session, with democratic representations received where appropriate, to ensure a transparent decision-making process.

·         In cases where the Mayor took over determination of planning applications from the London Borough of Harrow, assurances should be given that any monies resulting from a Section 106 legal agreement would be allocated to the Borough for locally identified needs.

·         In the event that the Mayor was minded to direct approval of a planning application that the Borough wished to refuse, there should be a process in place for the Borough to be notified of the draft decision and given an opportunity to respond before the final determination of the application.

·         There should be a process in place by which the Borough could appeal against decisions made by the Mayor.

·         The proposals did not appear to be in keeping with the spirit of the Local Development Framework process and the London Plan.

·         The proposals had the potential to have additional resource implications.

·         There may be an equalities impact as the proposals would take away the right of representation.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Cabinet)

That the comments as set out in the report of the Director of Strategic Planning, amended in accordance with the views expressed by Panel members, be forwarded to the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Association of London Government.

[REASON:  To make the Government aware of the Council’s views].

[Note:  The Panel wished it to be recorded that this decision had unified cross-party support].

(See also Recommendation 3).

Having made a recommendation to Cabinet in this regard, the Panel:

Resolved to RECOMMEND: (to the Portfolio Holder for Property, Housing Planning (Development) and Planning (Strategic)

That the Portfolio Holder write to the Association of London Government (ALG) setting out the concerns raised by the Panel and requesting that the Panel’s comments be formally taken into consideration by the ALG Leaders’ Committee.

[REASON:  To make the ALG aware of the Council’s views].

(See also Recommendation 2).

The Director of Strategic Planning introduced the report which outlined a draft response to the Government’s proposals to replace the Planning Delivery Grant with a Housing and Planning Delivery Grant from 2008/9 onwards.

During the discussion on the report, the following issues were raised:

·         A Panel member stated that, in her view, the Borough would lose out under the proposed scheme.

·         A Panel member expressed concern that the new grant framework could potentially take resources away from more deprived areas that were not areas for housing growth.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Cabinet)

That the comments as set out in the report of the Director of Strategic Planning, amended in accordance with the views expressed by Panel members, be forwarded to the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Association of London Government.

[REASON:  To make the Government aware of the Council’s views].

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

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

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

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members in relation to the business 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 Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

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

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

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2006, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

It having been noted that the minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2006 had been circulated with the agenda in error, it was

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2006 be deferred until the next meeting of the Panel.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultative Forum Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4E of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting under the provisions of Advisory Panel and Consultatuive Forum Procedure Rules 15, 13 and 14 (Part 4E of the Constitution) respectively.

Report of the Director of Strategic Planning.

(See Recommendation 1).

Report of the Director of Strategic Planning.

(See Recommendations 2 and 3).

Report of the Director of Strategic Planning.

(See Recommendation 4).

RESOLVED:  That a Special Meeting of the Panel be held on Tuesday 31 October 2006 at 7.30 pm to discuss the responses to the current LDF consultation.