Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllrs Beacham and Sahota.

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 10 below.

No items of Urgent Business were tabled.

No Declarations of Interest  were tabled.

To approve the minutes of the Regulatory Committee on  9 December 2014 and Special Regulatory Committee on  15 January 2015.

Cllr Bevan requested an update in relation to the following actions from the minutes of meeting on 15^th January:

• The wording of the Haringey Civic Centre site plan be reviewed to avoid any presumption being implied in relation to the traveller’s site. The AD Planning responded that the allocation for the Civic Centre site had been looked at and it explicitly excluded the traveller site in the red line boundary. The Planning service had checked the wording to make sure that was not an issue.
• Officers to look into the potential of establishing policy position prohibiting advertising on BT phone boxes. The AD Planning responded that this issue was being examined.
• Supporting the Highgate Neighbourhood Plan. The AD of Planning responded that Officers had subsequently met with the Highgate Area Forum and noted that the Forum had submitted a bid for new support funding for professional support which would be considered shortly.

The AD of Planning fed back that, as per page 7 of the minutes, the Committee requested that consideration be given to including a link on the pre-application planning pages. It was noted that this was part of an ongoing piece of work with Communications and should be in place by 1^st April.

Clerk to remove the draft watermark from the minutes of the meeting on 15^th January.

Regulatory Services Manager to raise an issue with Cllr McNamara around the Parks service, working with promoters to do more to prevent stalls promoting smoking or the sale of cigarettes at Finsbury Park during events.

RESOLVED

 That the minutes of the Regulatory Committee meetings held on the 15^th January and 9^th December be approved. 

To receive a briefing on measures that the Planning Service is undertaking to improve the quality of new development coming forward.

The Chair elected to bring Forward Item 9 on the agenda, around Delivering Quality in New Developments.

The Committee considered a report that was tabled by the AD for Planning as part of the agenda pack on the implementation of a new design review process. The Committee noted that Peter Studdart had been appointed as an independent Chair of the Quality Review Panel. Peter Studdart gave a presentation to the Committee, outlining how the design review process worked and how this would fit in to the other measures that had been put forward.

The following points were raised during the presentation and the subsequent discussion:

• The National Planning Policy Framework recommended that local planning authorities had local design review arrangements in place to ensure high standards of design.
• A Quality Review Panel helped to demonstrate that the authority had high aspirations for design quality. The context was set by Haringey Quality Charter and Local Plan. Quality was particularly relevant given the high profile major developments around Tottenham.
• Quality Review Panel would replace the existing Design Review Panel and moved to a more structured service.
• Chair appointed, but 12-15 panel members were sought.
• Design review process aimed for one full day meeting per month from April and is funded by the developer. 4-5 Panel members chosen per meeting which ensured an appropriate range of skills.
• The review process would involve a site visit.
• Process should speed up the planning process if done well, reduced risks and costs to the developer and identified contentious issues early on in the process.
• Process provided access to independent expert advice and guidance, showed that Haringey was serious about securing high quality design and backed up officers when poor schemes were recommended for refusal.
• It was noted that the closing date for applications to the Panel was 13^th March. Panel appointed and provisional meeting dates set from April for coming year. Peter Studdart agreed to give an annual report back on progress to Regulatory Committee.
• The AD for Planning commented that the design review process was estimated as costing around £3100 and £1500 for a design review meeting, compared to around £8000 for a CABE design review meeting. The operating costs were modelled to be of no cost to the public purse.
• In response to a question around where the Quality Review Panel sat in relation to pre-planning meetings, officers advised that the two processes could work alongside each other..
• Confirmation was given that it would be a judgement call from officers as to which schemes were brought before the Quality Review Panel. It was noted that they would tend to be the larger schemes or the more contentious cases.
• Confirmation was also given that it was envisaged that the Panel would be made up of a range of skilled expertise such as architects, engineers, heritage advisors etc. In order to provide a broad range of expertise to reviewed schemes.
• The AD for Planning noted that he would not expect Peter Studdart to attend Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

To receive a briefing paper on the Paddy Power appeal hearing against the Council.

The Committee considered a report from the Paddy Power appeal hearing which was held at Highbury Magistrates Court over two days in November 2014. The following points were raised during the discussion of the report:

• The Committee noted that Paddy Power won the appeal hearing but that the Council was not made liable for court costs. The Regulatory Services Manager commented that the Council’s case was predicated on arguing that crime and disorder in the area caused by the customers of the existing betting shops was sufficient of a link to gambling and that there was clear evidence that the level of disorder was above the threshold of being a mere nuisance. The Council argued that there were no conditions that could be added to the licence to minimise the risk of further crime and disorder. 
• The District Judge noted that the local authority had a duty to aim to permit such applications and that she was satisfied that the evidence before her showed no connection between acts of crime and disorder in the area and gambling.
• The District Judge also commented that the conditions on the licence proposed before the first hearing was sufficient and should have been added to the Licence at the time by the Licensing Committee. Consequently the Licence was awarded and the list of conditions was added to the Licence.
• During the costs hearing, Paddy Power’s QC noted that one of the Licensing Committee Members approached him and expressed an opinion that the Council should not have refused the Licence application. It was noted that Members should be aware that such comments can be mentioned in court and undermined the Council’s case in apportioning costs.
• Confirmation was given that there would be no appeal on the award of costs.
• In response to a question on what grounds would the Council bring a similar case to court, officers advised that the Council’s case hinged on the witnesses convincing the Judge that the anti-social behaviour caused by patrons of the existing betting shops was sufficient to refuse the licence on the grounds of crime and disorder. Officers also advised that similar cases in other boroughs had gone against the local authority, and in a number of cases had resulted in the betting shop company being able to also claim substantial costs.
• The Committee was advised that Police had not given evidence in support of the case and that the reason why was because crime statistics tended to be quite low around betting shops, especially in comparison to some other high street premises e.g. McDonalds.
• The AD Planning noted the Government had been consulting on whether betting shops should be given a different licensing classification of sui generis which would allow the planning authority to restrict instances of changes of use. As part of the Development Management Policies’ DPD, the Council has suggested a policy approach on numbers and what the level of concentration should be. The Committee were encouraged to review the documents and feedback any comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

To seek approval for an increase to the Council’s licensing fees and charges with effect from 1^st April 2015.

A report was tabled by the Head of Finance – Accounting & Control, outlining the annual proposed increase to a number of licences that fell under the authority of Regulatory Committee. Cabinet had already met on the 10^th February to agree the fees & charges that fell within its remit. The Committee noted that the report proposed 2.3% uplift across the board, in line with inflation (subject to a degree of rounding up or down to the nearest pound in some instances).

The following points were raised during the discussion of the report:

• A query was raised about the fact that the 2.3% increase resulted in a number of charges that were rounded to nearest few pence, and that the charges should be all rounded to the nearest pound instead. Officers responded that with inflation being low, the proposals reflected a desire to increase each of the fees and charges. In addition, officers advised that the Council is trying to move to a less cash dependant system of collecting income and so the amount should not matter as long as it’s rounded to the nearest 1 pence.
• Officers also noted that the danger with rounding up to the nearest pound is that can, in some instances, be a very large percentage increase, which would be difficult to justify on inflationary grounds. All of the fees and charges should be aimed at a level that sought to recover costs.
• Cllr Bevan moved that the Committee amend the fees and charges to the nearest Pound, apart from where the charges were set at the maximum by the Government. The Principal Lawyer to the Committee responded that the level of fees needed to be set at this Committee meeting and that if rounded to nearest Pound, either up or down, it would create an element of uncertainty. The Committee needed to be quite clear as to what the figures were. Cllr Carter seconded the motion. The Principal Lawyer to the Committee agreed that a resolution could be taken subject to her previous advice. The chair suggested that the Committee voted on the proposed fees and charges as set out in the tabled report and that if those were rejected that the committee would move to Cllr Bevan’s resolution. The Committee approved the proposed fees and charges as set out in the report by 7 votes to 2. 

RESOLVED

·         That the proposed increase to the Council’s licensing fees and charges, as set out in the appendix of the tabled report be approved with effect from 1st April 2015, subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment being undertaken, as set out in Paragraph 7 of the report, with any subsequent changes then required then being delegated to the Assistant Director for Environmental Services and Community Safety.

To seek the views and recommendations of the Committee on the draft Housing Strategy 2015-2020 for Cabinet to take into account when it considers the draft for approval for a six week consultation.   

The Committee considered a report seeking views and recommendations on the proposed draft Housing Strategy; these comments were to be fed into a report to Cabinet. Cabinet would then consider the recommendations as part of the draft report before it was sent out for public consultation. The Committee noted that there was an addendum tabled to this report, as the document was still being developed and amendments had been made since the agenda pack for this meeting was distributed. The addendum report outlined what those changes were. There were no significant changes to the recommendations made in the report and most changes were implemented to make the document easier to understand.

The Committee noted that the draft strategy would go to Cabinet on the 17^th March and that Cabinet would then give approval to go out to public consultation for six weeks. The Committee further noted that the consultation would begin following the conclusion of the Purdah period, and the result of the General Election on the 7^th May. A clear result in the election would enable the consultation to be sent out on the 11^th May for six weeks. However, in the event of a hung parliament and a delay in forming a government then Purdah would be extended and the consultation would be delayed. The intention was to take the final strategy to Cabinet with a recommendation to approve the strategy to Full Council in July, but a significant delay in the outcome of the election may result in this being delayed until September.

The following points were raised during the discussion of the report:

·         The committee noted a significant reduction, across neighbouring boroughs, in the numbers affordable homes being built given the large reduction in government subsidy. Michael Kelleher agreed to circulate the figures of the number of affordable homes being built in Haringey and neighbouring boroughs, to the Committee.

·         The Committee asked for further details on the approach being adopted in the strategy. The Chair clarified that in its current format the document had a number of over-arching strategy points and that some of the detail was still to be developed. Officers confirmed that they were seeking the Committee’s recommendations on the over-arching strategy.

·         The Committee expressed an interest in understanding the delivery model in more detail when this was better understood. Officers responded that the various delivery plans and sub-strategies would be developed over a period a time and that some of these in fact already exist, such as the Housing Investment and Estate Renewal Strategy. Michael Kelleher agreed to send round an outline of the various sub-strategies that existed to the Committee. It was agreed that the report should more clearly outline the fact that there are a number of sub strategies and delivery plans sitting beneath the over-arching Housing Strategy.

The Chair welcomed Cllr Strickland, Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration to the meeting.

The following further points were raised during the discussion of the report:

·         Cllr Bevan raised concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

To advise on Development Management and Planning Enforcement performance for quarter 3 and January 2014/15.

The Committee considered a report which summarised performance around Development Management and Planning Enforcement for Quarter 3 and January 2015. An addendum report was also tabled summarising the enforcement action taken by Planning Enforcement in Quarter 3.

The AD for Planning noted that the report showed significant improvement in performance from a few years ago, particularly around speed of decisions being taken. A consistent level of performance on major applications and consistent levels of minor and household applications was also noted, against a back drop of rising application numbers. The AD for Planning advised that the appeal performance of the service has steadily improved, which showed an improvement in the quality of decisions taken.

A consistent level of pre-application proposals was noted. From April, the service would change to a paid service for householder pre-applications. A higher demand for the service was expected as a result but it was envisaged that the move to a paid model would also improve quality.

The Committee noted a continued increase in the number of Planning Enforcement enquiries. From 4^th March, Planning Enforcement service requests would be handled by Customer Services. 257 enforcement cases were reported in the last quarter, which was on target to be lower than in previous years. The AD for Planning advised that the table at section 6.8 of the report which showed major application performance was in error - Performance around notification as a result of people who make enforcement complaints, was not correctly recorded in terms of the target figure.

The AD for Planning also advised that the Planning Enforcement service was undergoing a reorganisation of its structure to explore how the service could more effectively respond to complaints

The following further points were raised during the discussion of the report:

• Further clarification was sought on the difference between  appeals made following a decision of the Committee over those made by officers under delegated authority. Officers responded that a number of policies were in the process of being developed to improve performance in this area. From March 2013 to January 2015, 9 applications were refused by Planning Committee. 7 of these were against officer recommendations and 6 of these refusals have been appealed. The AD of Planning agreed to give the Committee a more detailed update on performance around Planning Enforcement appeals and the breakdown of officer vs. Member decisions, in the next performance report.
• In response to a question on whether the Hollybank development in Muswell Hill had been appealed, the AD Planning responded that he was unsure but noted that this would be included in the performance figures for the next quarter.
• In response to issues raised by the Tottenham Conservation Society in a letter about delegated decisions made by Planning Officers, concerns were raised with erroneous decisions being made. The chair responded that she had discretionary powers to hear specific applications at Committee instead of the decision being taken by officers, and agreed that if there was a specific case to discuss then the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

To be confirmed in line with approval of the new municipal calendar.

The chair commented that there was a number of Planning meetings coming up that month and requested that Members inform the respective Chief Whips if they were unable to attend a meeting so that replacements could be found.

No new items of Urgent Business were tabled.