Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Basu, Cllr Bevan and Cllr Gunes.

It being a special meeting of the Committee, under Part 4, Section B, paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

There were no items of urgent business.

 Cllr Mitchell declared a personal interest as living within the safeguarding area for Crossrail 2, and in the vicinity of the Palace Gates disused railway, identified as a site for development in the report.

Cllr Patterson declared a personal interest as living in the vicinity of Alexandra Palace station.

Cllr Beacham declared a personal interest as living close to Alexandra Palace station, and possibly within the Crossrail 2 safeguarding area.

To consider four broad development options and the preferred option for how regeneration might take place in Wood Green and to recommend Cabinet approve release of the Wood Green Area Action Plan: Issues and Options Report for public consultation.

The Committee considered the report on the Wood Green Investment Framework and Area Action Plan (AAP): Broad Options for Regulation 18 Consultation, introduced by Stephen Kelly, Assistant Director, Planning. Attached to the report was a draft Wood Green AAP Issues and Options document, which set out four broad development options and a preferred option for how regeneration might take place in Wood Green. The report asked Regulatory Committee to recommend to Cabinet that the draft Issues and Options document be approved for publication and public consultation.

The report set out the strategic context and background to the development of the Wood Green Investment Framework and AAP, an overview of the four options and the preferred option, details of the public consultation exercises undertaken, a summary of responses arising from the consultations to date, and details of the proposed consultation.

In addition to those sites set out  in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD), the Issues and Options document identified a number of additional sites viewed as making a significant contribution to growth in the area and Mr Kelly advised the Committee that the differences between the four options in the document largely focussed around proposals for these sites and those set out in the Site Allocations DPD. The preferred option, Option 4, was the most radical of the options in terms of the number of residential units and degree of change but also had the longest delivery period and consequent disruption. Each option had been scored against the criteria and objectives as set out on page 39 of the document, which were based on the vision for the area. It was assessment against these core objectives which formed the basis of the conclusions of the document.

Mr Kelly thanked Cllr Mitchell for having identified a number of typographical errors in the report and draft Issues and Options document in advance of the meeting, and advised that these would be addressed before the report went to Cabinet.

The Committee expressed disappointment that, having followed a similar process in respect of the Tottenham AAP and learnt lessons from that exercise, the Wood Green AAP Issues and Options report did not contain specific details at site level for each option. Mr Kelly noted that additional detail would be required before any proposals could be submitted to the Secretary of State, and that additional public consultation may be required on any additional details. 

The Committee welcomed that a summary version of the document would be produced, as this would be more broadly accessible. Concern was expressed regarding some of the technical planning language used in the document, as it was felt that some terms would not be meaningful to the majority of people. Mr Kelly accepted this point and advised that a glossary would usually be provided as part of such a document. The Committee encouraged the use of plain English wherever possible, although it was accepted that some specialist terms were unavoidable in specific cases, and it was agreed that this would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

To consider a report on the work of the Planning Service in 2015.

The Committee considered the report on the review of the work of the Planning Service in 2015, presented by Emma Williamson, Head of Development Management. The report covered performance in respect of Development Management and Building Control, as well as updates on planning policy, Member development and challenges facing the Service. A separate planning appeals report also set out performance against appeals and details of individual appeal cases.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the number of enforcement notices issued compared with the number of complaints received, and why this appeared so low, Ms Williamson advised that the level of enforcement notices issued had been fairly consistent, at around 100 per year. Stephen Kelly, Assistant Director, Planning, advised that around 60% of enforcement cases were resolved by agreement and that of the complaints received, some would not turn out to be breaches, some would be very minor and some would be resolved by means other than enforcement notices. It was clarified that each complaint related to an individual breach – multiple complaints relating to the same breach would still count as a single complaint.  Looking at the figures for the issuing of enforcement notices across the London boroughs, it was noted Haringey was performing relatively well, and the Committee felt that it was important to promote this. Ms Williamson advised that the Enforcement policy was something that the Committee should review later in the year, including a review of the indicators used in relation to enforcement policy to ensure that performance reports contained meaningful data and comparators.

The Committee asked whether there were plans for another Planning Conference, and it was confirmed that the Council had committed to holding this as an annual event and the next was planned for September 2016.

The Committee asked for more information about the protocol for assessment of viability in respect of affordable housing, as mentioned in the report. Mr Kelly advised that this was a cross-London project, aimed at establishing a new protocol for all London Boroughs and the GLA, and that Haringey had committed to engaging with this project. It was felt that having a consistent methodology across London would be a sensible way forward and it was hoped that consultation on this would be launched later in 2016. The Committee welcomed the Council’s proactive involvement in this work, and felt that this was also something that it would be good to promote. The Chair noted that information on positive performance in respect of affordability had been circulated to Members previously and that this could be repeated.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the pre-application service and whether the Government would consider increasing the chargeable fee to cover the cost of offering the service, it was reported that the Council was making a case for an increase in fees to cover costs, but that it was unlikely that this would be agreed.

Cllr Mitchell requested that further details be provided to him outside the meeting regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

15 February 2016

15 February 2016.

The meeting closed at 9.25pm.