Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Place Shaping

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Place Shaping which introduced the submission publication version of the Harrow Core Strategy.  It was intended to publish this document for public consultation in March 2011, prior to its submission to the Secretary of State in May 2011.

An officer reported that an updated version of the document had been circulated electronically to the Committee.  He would highlight the changes from the document included in the Committee agenda via a presentation if required. 

The officer advised that the Core Strategy was the most important document in the Local Development Framework and set out the broad strategy and vision for the borough.  The officer outlined the background to the consultation on the preferred option.  The revised Core Strategy was now ready for the next statutory stages in its preparation and progress to adoption.  The overall strategy had not been changed from that proposed in the Preferred Option, in terms of the quantum of different types of development to be delivered and where in the Borough.  In order to respond to the comments raised in relation to the need for more detail about how growth outside the intensification area would be managed, the document had, however, been changed to move away from policies that dealt with land based issues in preference to area based policies.

The officer advised the Committee that the report was a work in progress and that the version circulated with the agenda was an early draft.  An updated version had been circulated electronically to Members on 25 January 2011 and the Local Development Framework Panel had considered that version at their meeting on 1 February 2011.  He outlined the comments made by the Panel, the recommendations of which would also be considered by Cabinet at their meeting on 10 February 2011.  He added that further comments were still being received and that the final version would be forwarded to Plain English for a critique.

Members, in considering the Core Strategy, asked questions and made a number of comments which were responded to as follows:

·                     A Member questioned whether the implications of the Mayor’s new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been considered.  The officer advised that a local viability assessment had been undertaken by GVA Grimley which showed that new office development was currently not viable and other commercial development could only carry a modest charge.  If the Mayor imposed a £35 per sq m tariff, economic development in Harrow would be wiped out and officers were responding robustly on the consultation.  Other boroughs, including Richmond, also opposed the Mayoral CIL.

·                     In response to a Member’s question, the officer advised that the strategy had been updated as it dealt with all types of land use and that it was more aligned with the Sustainable Community Strategy.

·                     A Member questioned the performance of Harrow in terms of emissions and was advised that Harrow’s carbon footprint was 11.4 tonnes of CO² per capita.  This was higher than the London average but lower than the national average. Harrow was 28^th out of the 32 London Boroughs.

·                     In response to a Member’s question in relation to NI 197- active management of local sites, the officer advised that the reduction of the target to 3 would have been based on the advice of colleagues responsible for preparing the conservation site management plans.

·                     A Member questioned whether action was being taken to address the proportion of open space in the central area.  The officer confirmed that this was being considered, including improved access to existing open space, improving its quality and therefore usability, and seeking greater use of private open space.

·                     A Member stated that the affluence of Harrow could change if employment growth was in the service sector.  The officer commented that such growth would only match the decline being experienced in the manufacturing sector and therefore it was unlikely to result in a significant change in the economic demographics of the Borough.

·                     In response to a Member’s concerns that the strategy contained little in relation to traffic volumes and the traffic network, the officer advised that a detailed transport audit had been done and that Harrow had high car user rates.  The issue was with connections within and across Harrow.  The strategy promoted improved and faster orbital bus links as well as key junction improvements to address local congestion. Less car parking was being promoted for development within town centres well served by public transport and the London Plan constrained the Council in terms of parking provision.

·                     A Member questioned the position in terms of affordable housing.  The officer advised that affordable housing would still be sought via the overarching policy and that the evidence base indicated that a borough-wide target of 40% would be appropriate, given the implication that grant was unlikely to be available.  The 40% would comprise affordable housing from private schemes, 100% social housing schemes and estate renewal schemes.

·                     A Member sought clarification on the meaning of ‘Metropolitan Centre’.  The officer advised that the designation was based on the level of office and retail floor space.  At the time the designation was made in 2004, Harrow town centre was in a robust position but it had not kept pace with other town centres since.  If Harrow were to be downgraded, it may appear that the borough was not a good place to invest in.

·                     A Member requested that the views from St Mary’s Church on Harrow on the Hill be preserved.  She indicated that there was considerable overgrowth of trees and bushes.  The officer noted that the view shafts worked both ways, protecting views to and from the Hill, however the issue of trees was beyond the scope of the Core Strategy as it was a management issue. 

·                     A Member questioned the level of CIL Harrow could expect.  The officer advised that a viability assessment had been carried out and that he was confident in relation to the market for residential development that a reasonable level of change could be carried by new development.  The CIL would be used to fund strategic infrastructure, including transport, education and health.

·                     In response to a number of other questions raised by Members of the Committee, the officer advised that tall buildings were those over 30 metres (10 storeys), there was a space behind Harrow Leisure Centre Swimming Pool that could be brought back into use for indoor courts provision, the Council was trying to bring allotments up to an agreed standard of quality and that the hyphens typed in Harrow on the Hill in the strategy would be removed.

The Chair thanked the officer for his presentation and it was

RESOLVED:  That Committee’s comments on the submission version of the Core Strategy be forwarded to Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 10 February 2011.