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 those present to agenda item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting and asked that those present reviewed and noted the information contained therein.

Apologies for Absence were noted from Cllr Mitchell and Cllr Gunes.

Apologies were also noted for Peter Studdart who was unable to attend due to illness.

In addition, apologies were also noted from Raymond Prince for lateness.

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 12 below.

There were no items of Urgent Business.

No Declarations of Interest were received.

To approve the minutes of the Regulatory Committee on 21 September and Special Regulatory Committees on 9 November 2015 and 4 January 2016.

Cllr Bevan requested an update on meeting with the Quality Review Panel, both as Design Champion and as part of the Committee. Officers responded that Peter Studdart from the Quality Review Panel was due to attend the meeting but had to give apologies due to illness. Mr Studdart would hopefully be attending the next meeting to update the Committee on the Quality Review Panel.

The AD Planning added that he was attempting to facilitate the Quality Review Panel meeting with local amenity groups as requested and was looking at what the most efficient and effective manner of doing that would be.

The Chair proposed that this should be done through a community conference to ensure that all groups get equal access. The AD Planning agree to look in to putting together an annual sharing and review process with the panel and Members, potentially around April time and to look in to a similar process for community groups.

Action: Stephen Kelly

Cllr Bevan requested clarification on the issue of security grills within the conservation area on Noel Park Estate. Officers responded that the Committees’ concerns around security grills had been reflected in the Noel Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan, presented to the Committee at Agenda Item 8.

Cllr Bevan also sought clarification on pooled resources with the GLA around viability assessments. The AD Planning was due to meet the lead officer on this project last week but the meeting was rescheduled, he advised that Haringey were working with the GLA to move to an agreed and shared protocol.

Cllr Bevan requested an update on the previous action around the terms affordable housing and social housing being set out in a glossary and also consistency in their use in Council reports. Officers responded that a review was undertaken of Local Plan documents to ensure that the terms were used in a consistent manner and that the definition adopted was derived from the National Planning Policy Framework. Officers commented that the Housing and Planning Bill proposed including starter homes being part of that definition.

Cllr Bevan also sought clarification on the re-definition of Travellers and the impact on the provision for Travellers sites within the borough. Officers responded that they had engaged consultants ORS to undertake the further survey work required in light of the change in definition.

Cllr Cater requested that the minutes of 21^st September be amended to reflect that he was a Director of the Friends of Finsbury Park Group Ltd and  that the minutes reflect that it was a limited company and a registered charity.

Action: Clerk

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Regulatory Committee on 21^st September and the Special Regulatory Committees on the 9^th November and the 4^th January be approved.

To receive a verbal update.

The Lead Licensing Officer, Daliah Barrett, gave a verbal update to the Committee on the revision of Gambling Policy. The Committee noted that that new Statement of Licensing Policy was on the Council’s website and that the Statement of Gambling Policy was also on the website. The Statement of Gambling Policy required updating this year to reflect the new provisions around local risk assessments. The Lead Licensing Officer was pulling together data on ward profiles and was developing a policy that would set out what each of the local risk assessments would be for each betting operator.

Cllr Weston enquired how the risk assessments would impact the Licensing Committee’s ability to condition licenses. Officers responded that there was no change to the primary legislation, so there was still a duty on the Committee to aim to permit. Having the risk assessments in place meant that the operator needed to undertake further research of the area that they wanted to open a premises in and also enabled the panel to put in place some conditions on the premises to open in a particular area. The Committee noted the example of requiring a premises to put a door supervisor on duty.

Cllr Carter asked for clarification on the term aim to permit and enquired whether any discussion had taken place on what the term meant as that term was not used in other aspects of licensing. Officers responded that Gambling Act required that we should aim to permit gambling as far as it is in line with the objectives set in the legislation, the guidance from the Gambling Commission and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

TO FOLLOW

The AD Finance apologised for the late dispatch of the report. The AD Finance introduced the report which sought approval for the annual review of the level of Fees and Charges levied upon service users and the accompanying increases entailed. The AD Finance advised that the fee’s and charges contained in the report were separate to the fees and charges approved at February Cabinet in a separate report. The Committee was informed that by law, a number of fees and charges could  not be approved by Cabinet hence this report.

The Committee noted that the approach in the report was consistent with the Cabinet report in that where there was discretion, an inflationary rate of 1% was proposed. There were a couple of exceptions to this approach such as street trading fees, as set out in paragraph 6.6 of the report.

Cllr Bevan commented that he had written to the Cabinet Member and reiterated his view that the fees and charges should be rounded up or down to the nearest pound or 50 pence, but was told that the fees and charges had already been set. Officers responded that these fees and charges were an entirely separate list of fees and charges from those agreed by Cabinet. Officers also advised that some work had been done to try and achieve a relatively round figure, however there was a balance between doing so and being mindful of the need to justify any increases that were significantly above inflation.

Cllr Bevan asked for clarification on whether this report covered swimming charges and was advised by officers that they were contained in the earlier Cabinet report.

Cllr Carroll enquired whether the authority was charging the maximum allowable amount for gambling fees. Officers responded that they were 5% below the maximum level but the report proposed increasing these by 1 %.

Cllr Bevan proposed moving that the gambling fees be moved to the maximum amount allowable. Officers advised that the Committee could do so but warned that any increases would leave the Council more open to challenge by the betting industry  and potentially generate greater scrutiny from the betting industry of what the money from the annual fees was spent on. The Committee agreed that any further increase in gambling fees should be done with caution and properly evidenced.

Assistant Head Litigation & Corporate advised that in terms of timescales, any increase would need to be agreed through the annual budget process, however the ground work could be done beforehand. The AD Finance stated that he was not aware of any reason why a change in the fee level could not come back mid year, subject to the appropriate consultation and equalities assessments being carried out.

Officers agreed to look into increasing gambling fees to their maximum amount and bringing an update back to a future meeting of the Committee.

Action: Daliah Barrett

RESOLVED

To approve the increases to the Council’s licensing fees and charges, as set out in Appendix A of the report, with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

To consider the finalised draft of the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan document and recommend to Cabinet for adoption.

The Committee considered a report which fed back on the Noel Park Conservation  Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan following the expiration of the public consultation period. The document had been amended in light of the representations received. The Committee was asked to review the finalise draft of the document and recommend it to Cabinet for adoption. The AD for Planning and Lucy Morrow, Conservation Assistant introduced the report.

Ms Morrow informed the committee that, following concerns raised previously around prevention of external security grills, gates and shutters being installed, the report was amended prior to going to consultation to reflect these concerns. Cllr Bevan enquired whether the report referred to security grills on windows as well as doors and requested that the report be amended to include a recommendation that residents seek advice from the crime prevention officer. Ms Morrow agreed to include mention of window security grills and to suggest seeking advice from the crime prevention officer.

Action: Lucy Morrow

The Chair raised concerns around enforcement of the conservation appraisal and enquired what was being done to ensure adequate enforcement took place. Officers responded that the Council was aiming to improve its processes within the Planning Enforcement team and progress was being made on this front. Officers also fed back to the Committee that they were  engaging with the Team Noel Park project and with HfH about how they could improve joint working and appropriately target interventions through the TNP project.

Cllr Weston enquired what the position was regarding enforcement for those residents who currently lived outside of the Article 4 and Conservation Area but would be caught in the expanded Article 4 and Conservation Area. Officers responded that the Article 4 declaration was not retrospective and so if changes were made under Permitted Development at the time, they would remain permitted.

In response to a question around outreach work and community engagement, officers advised that the community engagement had already been undertaken as part of the consultation process and it was planned to deliver leaflets to local residents following adoption of the character appraisal and management plan.

Cllr Carroll enquired what would be done in the instance of somebody within the conservation area installing UPVC windows. Officers responded that the normal route would be an Enforcement Notice requiring their replacement. The Chair requested that officers feedback to Cabinet on the need for an effective and consistent approach to enforcement.

The Committee noted the comments received on the draft document and recommended that Cabinet  adopted the Noel Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management plan, subject to the report being amended to include mention of security grills in front of windows as well as doors.

RESOLVED

1.    To note the comments received to the consultation on the draft document and how these have been taken into account in the finalising the draft Noel Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, highlighted at paragraph 5.18 and set out in the Consultation Statement at Appendix 2 of the report;

2.    To  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

To consider the revised Local Development Scheme and recommend to Cabinet for adoption.

The Committee considered a report that set out the revised timetable for the Local Plan documents that the Council was intending to produce over the coming years. The revised Local Development Scheme was being developed to replace the current outdated LDS published in January 2015. The Committee noted that the revised timetable for the Local Development Scheme was around 3 months behind what was agreed in the previous Local Development Scheme.  

Cllr Bevan asked for clarification around the five documents that were currently out to consultation and sought clarification on the basis with which a resident could request a change to be made. Officers responded that the Council was currently out to consultation on four key planning documents at pre-submission stage; Alterations to Strategic Policies, Site Allocations, Development Management Plan and the Tottenham Area Action Plan. The Committee noted that the Wood Green Area Action Plan was out for Regulation 18, Issues and Options stage – which was an open and informal consultation stage seeking stakeholder views on the main issues and options for the scheme.

The test of soundness for those four documents involved the following three criteria: Was the document justified, was it based on robust and credible evidence and was it the most appropriate strategy considered against other alternatives; was the document effective (could it be delivered) and was it flexible enough; was it consistent with national and regional policy.

Cllr Bevan also asked for an update on increasing the range of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Officers responded that Overview & Scrutiny Committee had recently looked at the CIL process and had recommended revisiting the CIL rates. Officers commented that a piece of work would be undertaken to look at both the rate and the list of the projects that CIL would be applied to once the scrutiny process can been completed.

RESOLVED

1.    To note and comment on (if necessary) the revised Local Development Scheme at Appendix A of the report; and

2.    To recommend that Cabinet approve the revised Local Development Scheme (LDS) at Appendix A of the report and that in doing so Cabinet resolve that the LDS is to have effect and in the resolution specify the date from which the scheme is to have effect.

To consider the adoption of a revised version of the Planning Protocol.

The Committee considered a report seeking approval to adopt a revised version of the Planning Protocol taking account of the lessons learnt in the first year of operation for the existing protocol and the comments made by Members. The purpose of the planning protocol was to provide more detailed guidance on the standards to be followed in relation to planning matters, which supplements the Members Code of Conduct.

Following a workshop to discuss the operation of the Planning Protocol held in October 2015, a key proposal was for the inclusion of speaking rights for ward Members and the Cabinet Member for Planning at pre-application briefing meetings of the Planning Committee. Speaking rights were included at 3 minutes each in the proposed revised protocol. In addition the following additional changes were proposed:

·         The removal of reference to the weekly list of planning applications as this was being phased out as a list, by ward, and could be run from the website at any time.

·         Clarification that  if an application was recommended for refusal a request for referral to Planning Sub-Committee will not be accepted.

·         Clarification that there were no public speaking rights at pre-application briefings to committee.

·         The introduction of the opportunity for Ward Members or Cabinet Members to speak for three minutes at pre-application briefing meetings to Planning sub-committee.

·         Encouraging Ward Members to register their intention to speak at pre-application briefing meetings or at planning sub-committee by midday on the working day prior to the Planning Sub-Committee meetings in order to manage the efficient operation of the Planning Sub-Committee (this cannot be required because of the Committee Procedure rules which allow for any member to speak at the Chair’s discretion).

·         Clarification that proposals should go before the Quality Review Panel prior to presentation at pre-application committee briefing meetings unless scheduling and programming prevents this.

·         Changing references to the Design Review Panel to its replacement the Quality Review Panel.

·         Clarifying that the applicant has a right to reply of the equivalent length of time of the objectors and any objecting ward councillors.

The Chair welcomed the proposal to allow speaking rights for ward Members and the Cabinet Member but cautioned that ward councillors needed to make it clear whether they were objecting to a particular application or not. Officers advised that, under the new protocol,  Members would be asked to state that intention when they registered to speak. Similarly, if Members arrived on the night and requested to speak, they would also be asked to state their intention as to whether they were objecting or not. The Committee welcomed the removal of any ambiguity in that regard.

Cllr Paterson asked for clarification on the purpose of allowing objecting ward councillors to speak at pre application meetings. Officers responded that when the proceedings were reviewed, there was a certain amount of angst as to why ward councillors were invited to attend when they were unable to take part. After reflecting on the concerns raised, officers added that they did not think it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 207.

To provide an introduction and brief overview of the work of the Haringey Quality Review Panel.

This item was deferred until the next meeting of the Committee.

Action: Clerk

None.

To be confirmed inline with approval of the calendar for the new municipal year.

The future meeting dates were noted as to be confirmed, in line with approval of the calendar for the new municipal year.