Agenda and minutes

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

To consider the appointment of a Vice Chair of the Sub-Committee for the Municipal Year 2015/16

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Paul Osborn as Vice-Chair of the Sub?Committee for the 2015/2016 Municipal Year.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2015 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2015, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Chair drew attention to the document ‘Protocol for the Operation of the Call-In Sub-Committee’.  He outlined the procedure to be followed at the meeting, and the options open to the Sub-Committee at the conclusion of the process.

In accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 46.5, a notice seeking to invoke the call-in procedure must state at least one of the following grounds in support of the request for a call-in of the decision:

a)            inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;

b)            the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision;

c)            the decision is contrary to the policy framework, or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with the budget framework;

d)            the action is not proportionate to the desired outcome;

e)            a potential human rights challenge;

f)             insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice.

He informed the Sub-Committee that the grounds a), b) and d) had been cited on the Call In notice, and this had been deemed to be valid for the purposes of Call-in.

RESOLVED:  That the Call-In would be determined on the basis of the following grounds:

a)            inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;

b)            the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision;

d)                 the action is not proportionate to the desired outcome.

a)    Notice invoking the Call-In;

b)    Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 20 January 2016;

c)    Report submitted to Cabinet on 20 January 2016.

The Sub-Committee received the papers in respect of the call-in notice submitted by 6 Members of the Council in relation to the decision made by Cabinet on the Draft Harrow Weald Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document.

The Chair advised the Sub-Committee on the suggested order of proceedings and reminded Members of the timings allowed for submissions and questions.  He invited the two representatives of the signatories to present their reasons for the call-in.

The first representative had been the Portfolio Holder in 2006 when it had been unanimously resolved that the three roads qualified for conservation area status.  She acknowledged that the decision had been marginal and had met with some resistance from the Conservation Officer but stated that this did not mean that the areas did not have merit.  The discussion at the Planning Policy Working Group had given the impression that the roads had no merit and had questioned their inclusion in the conservation area.  She expressed the view that as some of the six criteria had been met and as there had been no change in the subsequent ten years their exclusion was flawed.

In addition, the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which had taken ten years to produce, was an essential piece of work to support the Council’s position at planning appeals.  The three areas were being excluded at the first opportunity using a misleading and misdirected report.  The ability to remove areas from conservation areas was acknowledged but such a decision should be based on accurate information assessed by an unbiased person.

The second representative stated that there had been significant local concern at the decision to remove the roads from the Conservation Area as evidenced by in excess of 300 letters and a petition.  He considered the decision to be unnecessary and unjustified on the grounds of lack of consultation, insufficient evidence and proportionality.

With regard to lack of consultation, the consultation letter did not state that responses would be judged against six criteria nor did it state what the criteria were but that responses would be taken into account and changes made if appropriate.  Significant evidence had been provided, particularly in two responses, which supported the criteria. Although viable, the status quo was not given as an option.  He considered that the onus had been on residents to justify the status quo rather than the Council stating the reasons for change and residents would not be expected to have the requisite planning knowledge.  In addition, views should have been sought on the decision to change the name of the conservation area.  A number of residents had asked to meet the Portfolio Holder and had not received the opportunity.

There was insufficient evidence on which to change the decision made at the Local Development Framework Panel (LDF) which had been based on the same criteria, there had been no material change to planning policies that would affect the assessment and there had been no change on the ground.  As the decision had been made ten  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.