Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Brabazon.

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.

There were no new items of urgent business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determination of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Cllr McNamara declared a personal interest in agenda item 9, as a member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and Chair of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, which was likely to undertake a review of Planning Enforcement.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2012.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

To establish two Licensing Sub Committees to conduct the majority of licensing hearings, and to note the provisions for the appointment of substitutes.

The Committee considered a report on the establishment of two Licensing Sub Committees to conduct the majority of licensing hearings and on the provisions for the appointment of substitutes.

RESOLVED

i)                    That the terms of reference of the Regulatory Committee in the Council’s Constitution be noted, and the terms of reference of the Licensing Sub-Committees be confirmed.

ii)                  That the establishment of two Licensing Sub Committees with the membership set out in Appendix 2 to the report, as tabled at the meeting on 29 May 2012, be agreed.

iii)                That the provisions in the Committee Procedure Rules, Part 4, Section B of the Constitution and the delegations to the Head of Local Democracy and Member Services for the appointment of a substitute member of a Licensing Sub Committee from among the members of the Regulatory Committee when the permanent Sub-Committee Member is unable to attend for any reason be noted.

iv)                That it be noted that the Council Procedure Rules in Part 4 B of the Constitution do not apply to licensing hearings only in those areas where they conflict with the Local Licensing Procedure Rules and the relevant Acts and Regulations which take precedence.

To inform the Regulatory Committee of decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the above Regulatory Committee.

The Committee considered a report on decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the Regulatory Committee between 26 March and 13 May 2012. The following points were discussed:

• Cllr McNamara suggested to the Director of Place and Sustainability that, where space standards were not met in premises that had applied for certificates of lawfulness, such applications should be automatically refused. It was agreed that Paul Smith would meet with the Director of Place and Sustainability to discuss the feasibility of this approach.
• It was further recommended that wherever such applications were granted, appropriate follow-up enforcement be undertaken to ensure that health and safety issues were addressed; Paul Smith advised that Planning did consult with the Housing Improvement team regarding such issues, and that further dialogue would take place to look at what could be done further to ensure that appropriate standards were applied.
• Paul Smith provided some further clarification on the procedural differences around planning permissions and certificates of lawfulness; as certificates of lawfulness were governed by national legislation, the Local Authority was currently unable to change the regulations around this process, although the Localism Act may enable such changes to be made in future.
• It was confirmed that an application for a certificate of lawfulness could be submitted as an alternative to an application for retrospective planning consent for certain types of work, as both were processes to regularise works already carried out.
• In response to a question regarding the overall position in respect of Lawrence Road, it was reported that at the current time, no planning application had been submitted.
• Further to a recent discussion with Steve Russell, Cllr Schmitz advised the Committee that under section 257 of the Housing Act 2004, building regulations can be enforced for any HMO, even if the regulations in question came into force after the conversion had taken place.
• It was agreed that a report would be produced on the decision in respect of Bruce Castle Court, Lordship Lane, both in respect of the length of time taken to determine an application made in 2010, and whether a separate application had been made on the site in respect of double-glazed windows.

NOTED

To advise the Regulatory Committee of appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during March and April 2012.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the outcome of 11 planning appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during March 2012 of which 1 (9%) was allowed and 10 (91%) were dismissed. No planning appeals were decided during April 2012.

NOTED

To advise the Regulatory Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on performance statistics for Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the 12^th April 2012 Regulatory Committee. The Committee expressed serious concern regarding the 0% performance reported for several months in respect of the determination of major applications within 13 weeks, which was not felt to be acceptable. It was reported that additional staff had been taken on to address some performance issues, although performance on appeals was very positive.

The Committee requested information on how long it had actually taken for applications to be determined, where they had missed the 13- or 8-week target. It was agreed that this information would be provided. In response to a question from the Committee regarding benchmarking performance against other local authorities, it was noted that this data could be accessed from the DCLG website.

NOTED

To inform Members on Planning Enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery 2011/12.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the Planning Enforcement update for the year 2011/12. It was suggested that the previous discussion regarding cases closed as ‘not expedient’ could be revisited at a future meeting, and that the minutes of that discussion circulated for the benefit of new Members of the Committee. The following matters were discussed:

• It was agreed that details of the case at 60 St Paul’s Road, N17 would be emailed to Cllrs Peacock and Christophides.
• Tony Michael, Legal Advisor, advised the Committee that the administering of a caution was an efficient way of dealing with cases as it ensured that enforcement notices were complied with. Mr Michael explained that a warrant case was where someone had failed to appear in court, as a result of which a warrant for their arrest had been issued and they had yet to be located. Such cases were unusual, and were reviewed periodically.
• In response to a question regarding POCA, it was reported that following a conviction, the Council had the opportunity to apply for a confiscation order for the repayment of benefit accrued, where money had been made as a result of the breach. It was advised that this amounted to significantly more money being repaid to the Council than would be recovered by a fine being issued, as the Council would receive 18.75% of the amount agreed, to be used for planning enforcement. It was confirmed that, were the Council to be the initiating authority as well, they would receive a further 18.75% (37.5% in total) and that this was an incentive to train staff up as investigators, as was the model in other local authorities. It was confirmed that existing staff were receiving training, following the receipt by the Council of the first funds as a result of POCA.
• In response to a question regarding the issue of recovering housing benefit paid for unlicensed HMOs, it was reported that this was an issue the Council was currently looking into, with the support of Legal Services.
• Where the owner of a property could not be identified, Mr Michael confirmed that the local authority did have powers to enforce the terms of the enforcement notice, but that use of such powers was extremely rare. Efforts tended to be concentrated on locating the owner, and the level of action taken would depend on the level of the breach and expediency.
• An example was given of a recent planning application where details of the enforcement history on the site had not been incorporated into the planning details given on the website, and the Committee asked how enforcement history fed into to the planning application process. Mr Smith advised that enforcement and planning data were held on separate databases, although these were cross-referenced; it was now happening that enforcement history should appear as a section within the template for planning decisions and would therefore be visible on the website in relation to planning applications.
• In response to a request for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To consider any new items of urgent business admitted under agenda item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

The meeting closed at 20:08hrs.