Agenda and minutes

To note the changes in membership and the appointment of the Chairman at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 27 March 2007 for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2006/07.

RESOLVED:  To note (1) the appointment of Councillor Stanley Sheinwald at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 March 2007 as Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2006/07;

(2) the changes in the membership for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2006/07 agreed at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 March 2007.

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 the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:

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 interest 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 all items be considered with the press and public present.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2006 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

[Note:  The 28 November 2006 minutes are published on the Council's intranet and website].

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2006 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8.

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put at the meeting under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 9.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received at the meeting under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 9.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at the meeting under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10.

To receive any references from Council and/or other Committees or Panels.

RESOLVED:  To note that no reports were received.

The Chairman welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Enterprise to the meeting.  Members put their questions to the Portfolio Holder.  Members also asked supplemental questions, which were duly answered.

Question 1:  What can the Council do to stop the trend amongst developers of demolishing houses in order to construct flats, many of which are unaffordable to the residents of Harrow who most need them?

The Portfolio Holder responded to the question as follows:

·                     the role of planning committees was to decide each planning application on its own merit and that such applications could only be refused on planning grounds and not personal preferences.  However, such applications in conservation areas could be treated differently.  The Portfolio Holder added that some areas benefited from homes being converted to flats or demolished to build flats;

·                     with regards to the issue of affordability, it was market forces that influenced the price of property, not Government.  The Portfolio Holder stated that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) required an element of housing to be provided.  The Council ensured such provision for ‘key’ people.  She added that the London Plan had set the Council a target of 4000 additional units to be provided between 2008 and 2016 and that the policy was sound.  It was noted that eventually the Local Development Framework would replace the Unitary Development Plan when certain policies would be deleted.  However, the policy on affordable housing (H5) would be retained.

In response to a supplementary question, the Portfolio Holder reiterated that it was necessary for each planning application to be judged on its merits and that rudimentary policies could not be developed to protect the character of the area where public houses and petrol stations were being replaced by housing.

In response to another question, the Portfolio Holder agreed to provide the number of affordable houses provided in Harrow; annual targets for affordable housing were however thought to be approximately 150-200 units per calendar year.  The Portfolio Holder confirmed that an increasing amount of higher density homes had been built in Harrow but that they had been design led.

Question 2:   What are the Portfolio Holder’s views on the transfer of certain local development control powers to the Mayor of London?

The Portfolio Holder considered this move and the process to be undemocratic as there was no right of appeal against the Mayor’s decision. In response to a supplementary question, the Portfolio Holder did not agree that there were certain advantages as the Mayor had a pan?London view.  The Portfolio Holder stated that it was critical that local elected representatives with local knowledge decided on local issues, including planning applications, for the benefit of their constituents.  The Portfolio Holder highlighted the current situation where she stated that she believed there was an open democratic process.  It was noted that London Councils had submitted a motion against the transfer of powers. 

Question 3:  How might the Council’s planning service and transportation department work together to fully assess the impact upon the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Verbal report.

Following a discussion, Members suggested that the following areas be included in the work programme for 2007/08:

·                     a light touch review of the program in the Local Development Framework (LDF);

·                     developing the demography project.;

·                     transport, in particular the 140 bus route, which would benefit form an in-depth review.

·                     housing and its performance indicators;

·                     homelessness;

·                     promoting grants for people who adopted environmentally friendly practices;

·                     encouraging businesses to establish in Harrow.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the above be noted;

(2)  that the Portfolio Holder for Housing be invited to the next meeting for a question and answer session.

Report of the Director of People, Performance and Policy (Business Development).

Members thanked scrutiny officers for their work and it was

RESOLVED:  That the wording of the annual report, as attached in Appendix 1 to the officer report, be agreed.

Which the Chairman has decided is urgent and cannot otherwise be dealt with.

Councillor Richard Romain

Members thanked the outgoing Chairman of the Sub-Committee for his valuable contribution to its work programme and

RESOLVED:  That this message be conveyed to him.