Agenda item - Authority Monitoring Report

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED: That

(1) the Authority Monitoring Report 2012/13, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for publication on the Council’s website;

(2) authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, to make further minor changes to the Authority’s Monitoring Report prior to publication.

Reason for Decision: To comply with the requirement under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted: None.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration introduced the report, which set out theAuthority’s Monitoring Report (AMR) for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013. The AMR monitored the effectiveness of the implementation of local planning policies and production of Harrow’s new Local Plan. He added that it was intended to analyse all the indicators, and confirmed that all data entry had now been completed. He thanked officers for having completed the significant amount of work involved in the preparation of the AMR.

The non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members asked questions relating to the reported performance during March 2013, including any involvement of the Mayor of London on the issue of the provision of new homes, the New Homes Bonus, the Kodak site and its relationship with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and how the longer term achievements would be prioritised and help to shape the forthcoming budget.

In response the Portfolio Holder and the Divisional Director of Planning stated that:

· the New Homes Bonus was not something that the Council was able to control. The Council supported all growth and the CIL would bring in an excess of £1m per annum to support infrastructure and growth;

· in relation to the Kodak site, the £10m of the infrastructure would be delivered through Section 106 money. The site would not be subject to the Council CIL payments. The changes in the government’s Autumn Statement did not affect the use and provision of Section 106 money;

· the majority of the targets were being achieved which was a reflection on the excellent work of the officers and the economic improvements nationally. Work was in progress in cases where the targets were proving to be a challenge. There was an issue over the quality of improvement of open spaces and this was being addressed through the Green Grid Policy, including CIL and Section 106 money;

· the effect of recent permitted development changes was hard to quantify. Whilst there were new proposals for permitted development extension, the market had not seen a significant reduction in householder planning applications. There was an issue over the conversion of office buildings to residential properties. It was difficult to put a figure on the offset in real income but it was likely to be in the region of £150k of fees being forgone. Because of the relatively short period since these changes, the statistics in relation to officer permitted development were still being captured, the situation was dynamic and sampling was being done. Reliable indicators would be available at a later stage.