Agenda and draft 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 Item 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.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. Late items will be dealt with under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 15 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

Cllr Mitchell declared a personal interest in agenda item 13, Wood Green Area Action Plan, as his property was within the area covered by the AAP (identified as Alexandra Palace Station within Sub Area 1; Wood Green North). There was felt to be no reason to preclude him from the discussion of this item on the basis of this declaration.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2016.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To agree a revision to the membership of Licensing Sub A Committee for the remainder of the municipal year

The Committee considered the report on revised Regulatory and Licensing Committees membership as circulated in advance of the meeting, and noted an amended version of appendix 1 to the report that was tabled at the meeting, which reflected the correct membership at the time of writing the report.

RESOLVED

i)             That the Regulatory Committee note the change made to the Regulatory Committee membership at Full Council on 19 November 2016 for Cllr Brabazon to take the position vacated by former Cllr Ryan.

ii)            That the Regulatory Committee agree a revision to the membership of Licensing Sub A Committee for the remainder of the municipal year to replace Cllr Basu with Cllr Brabazon.

To consider the annual review of licensing fees and charges with effect from 1st April 2017.

The Committee considered the report on the review of fees and charges 2017-18 – Licences, as circulated in advance of the meeting.

The Committee asked about the small increase in the Exhibition Licences as set out in the report; the Licensing Officer advised that there had been a recommendation for these fees to remain unchanged, however in some instances an increase of £1, or rounding up to the nearest pound, had been determined by Finance. The Committee asked whether, for consistency, it would be  possible to round up the proposed 2017-18 fee for Registration of Premises for Competitive Bidding to the nearest pound, making this figure £325, rather than £324.80 as set out in the report. It was agreed that this would be implemented.

RESOLVED

That the Committee approve the increases to the Council’s licensing fees and charges, as set out in the attached Appendix A, with the amendment of the 2017-18 fee for Registration of Premises for Competitive Bidding to £325.00, with effect from 1^st April 2017.

To consider the annual review of gambling fees and charges.

The Committee considered the report on the review of fees payable under the Gambling Act 2005, as circulated in advance of the meeting.

It was noted that the effective date of the increased fees should read 1^st April 2017, and not the 1^st January 2017 as set out in the report.

RESOLVED

That the Committee approve the recommended increases to the application and annual fees to the statutory maximum as set out in Appendix 1 attached to the report, with effect from 1^st April 2017.

To consider the annual review of street trading fees and charges.

The Committee considered the report on the review of street trading fees and charges under the London Local Authorities Act 1990, as circulated in advance of the meeting.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the Hemmings case as set out in paragraph 6.4 of the report, it was reported that the latest position was that the Court had agreed that enforcement fees should not be charged upfront at the point of application and should be a separate fee. It was confirmed that Haringey was not affected by this ruling, as the application and fee charging model in Haringey was already compliant with this decision.

RESOLVED

That the Regulatory Committee approve the draft street trading fees for consultation as shown in Appendix 1 of the report.

To consider the adoption of new model conditions and guidance for boarding establishments.

The Committee considered the report on the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 – New Standard Conditions for Cat and Dog Boarding Establishments, as circulated in advance of the meeting. The Licensing Officer advised the Committee that there was one cattery operating in Haringey and that there had been an increase in applications for new businesses in this field of work in recent years. It was therefore felt that it was necessary to update the conditions in order to align with the model conditions published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, as set out in the report, and to be in line with the requirements of the 2006 Animal Welfare Act. It was noted that if adopted, this change would be effective from 17^th January 2017.

RESOLVED

That the Committee approve the adoption of the ‘Model Licence Conditions and Guidance for Cat Boarding Establishments 2013’ and the Model Licence Conditions and The Guidance for Dog Breeding Establishments 2016 published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to this report, with effect from 17^th January 2017.

To review and comment on the Planning Service response to the Scrutiny Panel report on Housing Viability Assessments.

The Committee considered the report on Housing Viability Assessments – response to the Scrutiny Review, as circulated in advance of the meeting. Emma Williamson, AD Planning, gave an introduction to the report, and outlined the recommendations of the Scrutiny review and the service response, as set out in the report.

The Committee discussed the report, and the following points were raised:

·         In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, currently being prepared, would align with the Mayor of London’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG.

·         The Committee asked whether the Council had in place a mechanism to ensure planning obligations for affordable housing are monitored, and it was confirmed that this was the case; a review was undertaken on an annual basis when returns were being prepared for submission to the London Development database and the housing team also monitor when they agree nominations. It was recognised, however, that there was scope to improve this process, and it was proposed that a new post would be created in order to monitor compliance on major applications for conditions and obligations (including affordable housing), enabling the Council to be more proactive in its approach.

·         The Committee noted the recommendation around providing training for the Planning Committee, and sought clarification of the purpose of this training given that this is a specialist and expert area. Officers advised that this would largely be in order to increase Members’ confidence in the viability assessment process and to equip them with the tools to analyse the information they were provided with, in order to be able to identify any anomalies. The AD Planning also advised that she would be happy to go through viability assessment data in detail with Members of the Committee where they felt that this would be useful, separate from the Planning Committee meetings.

·         The Committee welcomed the report for its accessibility, and asked how public confidence in the housing viability assessment process could be increased. The AD Planning advised that the decision to make it the Council’s default position that viability assessments should be published in full prior to the determination of the planning application was intended to increase confidence in the process. It was further noted that the Mayor of London’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and the London-wide viability protocol had helped, as these facilitated a joined-up approach across London. It was suggested that ways of increasing public confidence in the viability assessment process was something to be covered in the Members’ training programme.

·         In response to a question from the Committee on how the Council negotiated with developers when they stated that it was not possible to provide social or affordable units as part of a development, the AD Planning advised that negotiations were based on factors including what had been previously agreed at the site and what had been agreed elsewhere, and that a maximum reasonable level of affordable housing provision was usually reached. The Council’s viability consultant scrutinised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 236.

To review and comment on the proposed update of the CIL rate and governance procedure for its spend.

The Committee considered the report on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Update, as circulated in advance of the meeting. Matthew Patterson, Head of Strategic Planning and Policy, gave a presentation on the CIL review, setting out the current collection rates, background to the review and findings in terms of CIL rates, governance for distribution of CIL, the Regulation 123 list and proposed changes to the list, monitoring arrangements, the review of the s106 SPD and draft Charging Schedule and the timetable.

The following points were raised by the Committee during questioning and discussion of the report:

·         The Committee asked why there was no proposed increase in CIL rates for the North Tottenham area, given the development of the new stadium in this area. Officers advised that it was not permitted to anticipate an uplift in values, and that at present no uplift in values in this area had been observed. There was therefore no basis on which to propose an increase to CIL rates in North Tottenham.

·         In response to a question from the Committee it was confirmed that CIL was payable in full on commencement of development, with CIL on exceptionally large developments payable in instalments as set out by the Mayor of London. It was noted that developers were under a legal obligation to pay CIL at that point, and that fines could be issued where they did not comply.

·         The Committee asked how decisions on the distribution of CIL was determined, and it was reported that it was proposed that this would follow the same process as the Capital Programme. The Committee felt that there should be a mechanism by which non-Cabinet Members were able to make suggestions regarding the distribution of CIL, and it was agreed that this was a comment that the Regulatory Committee would put forward to Cabinet.

·         Cllr Mallett advised that as Cycling Champion, she would be able to put the Council in contact with local cycling groups as part of any consultation seeking suggestions for areas that would benefit from CIL funding.

·         The Committee asked about the process for developing a Neighbourhood Plan and for an update on the current progress of the Crouch End Neighbourhood Plan. Officers advised that the first step was to get approval as a Neighbourhood Forum, after which point work could commence on developing a Neighbourhood Plan. It was reported that the Highgate Neighbourhood Plan was currently at the examination in public stage, and that this would then need to go to the respective Cabinets of both Haringey and Camden, and would finally go to a local referendum. Crouch End had been approved as a Neighbourhood Forum last year, and were now in the early stages of drawing up their Neighbourhood Plan. Officers advised that they were aware of the proposals for a Finsbury Park Neighbourhood Forum, and were awaiting an application in this respect. It was noted that a significant challenge was ensuring that the groups taking these projects forward were representative of the local community.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

To review and comment on the “preferred option” Area Action Plan for Wood Green.

The Committee considered the report on the Wood Green Area Action Plan (AAP), as circulated in advance of the meeting. Cllr Goldberg, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Social Inclusion and Sustainability gave an introduction to the report, setting out the context for the AAP and the ambitions for the area. The Committee also received a presentation from Gavin Ball, Planning Policy Officer, setting out the wider network of London Town Centres, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats affecting the area, the preferred option for significant transformation of the area following a consultation undertaken in 2015, the community priorities for the town centre, sustainable growth and neighbourhoods, the vision and objectives for the AAP, the town centre offer, managing growth, Wood Green character areas and views of Alexandra Palace from the east of the borough, area-wide policies, site allocations, housing and job outputs, infrastructure and the timetable for developing the AAP.

The following points were raised by the Committee as they asked questions of the officers and Cabinet Member regarding the report and information presented:

·         While it was noted that there was no scope for developing large green spaces in the area, the Committee urged that the Council be more ambitious and innovative in its delivery of green spaces and addressing sustainability issues as part of the AAP including innovative building design incorporating green features and SUDS, and felt that the scale of the change proposed provided the opportunity to do so.

·         It was felt that Haringey did not have the same ‘sense of place’ as other London boroughs, and the AAP may provide an opportunity to address this. It was felt that having a single Crossrail 2 station based at Wood Green would help to create more of a sense of identity for the area, as well as creating better links with Alexandra Palace. The Committee asked whether there was any scope for the name of the new station to address this. The importance of ensuring that the area was liveable was also emphasised, and the creation of new spaces where people could congregate and socialise.

·         It was felt that there was a negative perception of Wood Green which needed to be addressed in order to encourage businesses to invest in the area. As a Metropolitan Town Centre, the area needed to be competitive and have its own distinct retail offer as well as providing more liveable space.

·         On a technical point, the Committee commented that the maps illustrating the AAP were too small, including the online versions, and officers agreed that this would be rectified.

·         The Committee questioned whether it was unrealistic to state in the AAP vision that Wood Green would be “north London’s most prosperous and liveable town centre” and asked whether it might not be more realistic to set out that Wood Green would be one of north London’s most prosperous and liveable town centres instead.

·         The Committee expressed some confusion regarding the last part of the final sentence of the ‘Housing’ section on page 6  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238.

To receive a report on the work of the Planning Service in the financial year 2016/17 to date.

The Committee considered the report on the Planning Services 2016/17 update, as circulated in advance of the meeting, the supplementary information circulated as a second despatch relating to the data for Building Control, and the proposed Building Control and Development Management fees and charges for 2017/18.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the number of planning decisions made by the Planning Committee in 2016/17 and how this compared with other years, the AD Planning advised that this represented an increase on previous years. It was reported that the decision in relation to Hale Wharf had been called in by the Mayor of London, and an update on this would be circulated to the Committee outside the meeting. (Action: EW)

Following a request from the Committee in relation to Member training, it was agreed that Corporate Management Plan training would be incorporated into the new training programme. Members were encouraged to advise the AD Planning of any additional topics they wished to cover as part of the Members’ training programme.

With regard to the proposed schedule of fees and charges for development management, the Committee noted that the proposed fee for householder applications should read £250.00 for 2017/18 and not £154.28 as set out in the schedule. It was further noted that fees for pre-application advice on Commercial applications were proposed to be doubled for 2017/18, in order that this service would no longer operate at a loss. The Committee also noted that the proposed increases in Quality Review Panel fees were in line with Camden, and that there was a new fee proposed for Surgery Reviews.

Having previously expressed concern regarding the succession planning in Building Control, the Committee emphasised the importance of the proposed restructure in this service area being implemented at the earliest opportunity in order to safeguard the value and strong reputation of this service.

It was agreed that the AD Planning would provide Cllr Bevan with an update on 24 Baronet Road, and Cllr Brabazon with an update on 3 Clifton Gardens.  (Action: EW).

The Committee asked whether the list of prosecutions set out at paragraph 5.12 of the report was a list of all prosecutions, and it was agreed that the AD Planning would confirm whether this was the complete list. It was agreed that successful prosecutions should be promoted by the Council in order to act as a deterrent to others, and the Committee further suggested that the Council should offer training for magistrates on issues relating to non-criminal cases such as enforcement, planning and licensing. (Action: EW)

The Committee congratulated staff in the Planning Service for the performance as set out in the report, and welcomed the reported reduction in backlog, the timescales for dealing with applications and the caseload for officers. It was noted that a new Head of Development Management was due to start in post on 1 April 2017.

RESOLVED

i)             That the Committee note the content of the report.

ii)            That the Committee approve the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 239.

There were no new items of urgent business.

30 March.

30 March.

The meeting closed at 21:40hrs.