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.  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’, 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 to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Cllr Collett gave apologies for absence, Cllr Ibrahim and Cllr Bartlett were absent.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business.  (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 8 below).

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution

There were no deputations/ petitions/ presentations/ questions.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 10^th September as a correct record.

RESOLVED

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee held on xxx as a correct record.

A report on the work of the Planning and Building Control services from April to December 2025.

Bryce Tudball, Head of Spatial Planning presented the report for National planning reforms – 

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee: 

• It was noted that a wide range of stakeholders, including this Council and the sponsor of the consultation, did not consider that the proposed changes would necessarily achieve the intended outcomes. A number of councils had expressed the view that the proposals would not address the root causes of issues relating to housing delivery. Similarly, several developers and landowners had indicated that they did not consider the changes would be effective. 

• Members heard that a criticism of the current Building Regulations regime was that it did not secure genuinely net zero development. The London Borough of Haringey, along with many other authorities, had sought to exceed national energy efficiency standards. The energy policies within the draft Local Plan went significantly beyond Building Regulations requirements. Officers advised that if the Council were restricted to delivering only Building Regulations standards, this would represent a reduction in energy efficiency performance compared to the standards the authority sought to achieve. This was identified as a principal concern. 

• In relation to energy efficiency improvement schemes, officers explained that Government operated a range of programmes providing professional advice, practical support and/or financial assistance to enable property owners to improve energy performance. At any given time, a variety of schemes were available, including grants to support the installation of measures such as air source heat pumps. These measures were typically expensive, and Government contributions generally ranged between £1,000 and £5,000. 

• Members congratulated officers on drafting an effective response letter which comprehensively addressed the concerns raised. 

• Regarding the proposed changes to the Mayor’s call-in powers, officers clarified that the proposal related to circumstances where a local planning authority was minded to refuse a scheme. It was noted that it was relatively rare for the Council to be minded to refuse a major application that had progressed to Planning Committee. Nevertheless, it was acknowledged that there would occasionally be schemes that did not meet the appropriate standards. Whilst the number was likely to be small, the principle remained a concern. 

• In respect of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) relief, officers advised that relief of 50% or greater was conditional upon meeting the proposed minimum affordable housing threshold of 20%, with higher levels of relief available where higher affordable housing provision was secured. 

• Officers emphasised that local support for development proposals was contingent upon schemes meeting evidenced housing needs. In this borough, identified need was principally for affordable housing. Therefore, if proposed changes to thresholds resulted in reduced affordable housing delivery, this was likely to weaken local support. In addition, lower CIL receipts would result in reduced funding for local infrastructure. Consequently, communities would perceive that developments were delivering fewer local benefits, which could further reduce public support. 

• In relation to proposals emerging from the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), officers advised that a consultation had taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

There were no new items of urgent business.

To note the dates of future meetings are to be confirmed.

It was noted that the dates of the next meeting was to be confirmed.