Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Beacham and Cllr Scott.

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 16 below.

There were no new items of urgent business, however mintues of the special Licensing Sub Committees held on 18 October and 5 November had been added as late items under agenda item 4, Minutes.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2012.

It was noted that comments made by Cllr Ejiofor with regard to the performance statistics report had been omitted from the minutes of the 29 May 2012; subject to this being added to the minutes it was:

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the 29 May 2012 meeting be approved and signed by the Chair.

Briefing from the Licensing Officer, Dale Barrett on:

The Late Night Levy – Regulations

Revision of Statement of Licensing Policy

Live Music Act 2012

Late Night Levy – Regulations

Daliah Barrett presented the briefing on the draft Late Night Levy regulations, as set out in the report circulated, and discussed the issues with the Committee.

• Concerns were raised regarding the engagement of the police in Licensing matters; it was felt that Members should hear from the police regarding the criteria they applied in determining whether to make representations on applications.
• It was felt that there needed to be a good level of engagement between licensees and the police, as had been the case when the 2003 Licensing Act was introduced.
• In assessing the case for a Late Night Levy, it was felt that there was a need to discuss with the police their resource requirements around policing the late night economy.
• Concern was raised that premises could alter their hours for licensable activity in order not to be liable for the levy charge, but would be able to allow customers to remain on the premises with alcohol previously purchased; this would make regulation and enforcement of licensable activity more challenging.
• Concern was expressed that there may be pressure from other organisations for the Council to adopt the Late Night Levy and that the Council should try to be ahead of the process in order to be able to handle such pressure appropriately. Ms Barrett advised that the police had indicated that they did not intend to try to influence the decision of any borough with regards to the adoption of the measures.
• It was noted that licensees of smaller premises could not always attend meetings or forums as they could not close down their premises in order to be able to attend, however information was distributed to all licence holders to ensure that they were aware of issues affecting them.
• It was suggested that this issue should be looked at in greater detail in another type of way, for example a wider forum or seminar attended by the police and other responsible authorities, rather than a formal meeting, to enable a more rounded look at the relevant issues. It was agreed that this should be arranged.
• The Committee requested a further report that reflected the discussions that had been held with Corporate Board and the Cabinet Member around this issue. Ms Barrett agreed to produce a more detailed report.
• Once the Regulatory Committee had considered this issue in greater detail, with a fuller report and evidence from other responsible authorities, it was felt to be essential that all Councillors should be invited to a session on this issue, as it would affect all Ward Members.
• It was suggested that this was an issue the Environment and Housing Scrutiny Panel could look at; Cllr McNamara would contact the Chair and Ms Barrett regarding taking this forward outside the meeting.
• Cllr Demirci advised that he would be discussing this issue with the Cabinet Member as part of his regular meetings as Chair of the Committee.
• Ms Barrett reminded members that a training session which would cover  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

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

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of decisions made under delegated powers between 14 May and 4 November 2012.

• The Committee discussed whether these figures should come to the Committee on a more frequent basis, however it was noted that the same information was circulated to all Members on a weekly basis, for their information.
• In response to a request from the Committee, it was agreed that the information could be provided in a spreadsheet format, to enable the data to be searched and / or reorganised according to the specific information sought.
• The Committee asked about ‘observations to other boroughs’, and it was confirmed that this was where a scheme was of such scale in one borough that neighbouring London boroughs were consulted on the application.
• In response to a question regarding applications affecting properties owned by the Council in other boroughs, it was confirmed that this would be handled by the Council’s Properties Department, and in such cases the Council would not be acting as the Local Planning Authority.
• It was agreed that a sampling exercise of delegated decisions would be useful, and it was agreed that a report on the principles of undertaking such an exercise should form the basis of a report to the Committee at a future meeting.
• It was suggested that the information in the report might be more useful in a solely electronic format, given that the information was for noting only, however after some discussion, the Committee on balance felt that the report should be retained.
• A report was requested for a future Committee on the issues taken into account where a delegated decision to grant permission was taken in respect of an application that conflicted with planning policy; it was noted that this issue was covered in the ‘how the planning application process works’ item, later on the agenda.

To advise the Regulatory Committee of appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during May, June, July, August, September and October 2012.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on appeal decisions determined between May and October 2012.

• It was suggested that some case analysis be undertaken to identify any particular learning points from the appeals, and to indicate whether any costs were awarded against the Council. It was confirmed that this was already underway and monthly review of appeal decisions would be ongoing. It was reported that costs would only be awarded against the Council in the event that the Council was deemed to have behaved unreasonably.
• In response to a question from the Committee, it was reported that judicial reviews were not covered by this report; there was one case which was currently in the process of applying for judicial review, and this was Wards Corner.
• It was requested that future reports on appeals should indicate where a decision had been considered by Committee, and whether the decision reached had been in line with the recommendation of the planning officers’ report.

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

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out statistics relating to development management and building control since the last meeting.

• The Chair asked Marc Dorfman to comment on the recent announcement by Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons. Mr Dorfman reported that Mr Pickles had originally named Hackney as the worst-performing Local Planning Authority in England, and had later corrected this to Haringey. This was on based on the criterion relating to performance for determining major applications within a 13-week time-frame, for the year 2011/12. Mr Dorfman reported that performance for 2012/13 was improving, with 2 of 4 major applications so far determined within the target.
• Mr Dorfman outlined some of the major applications for 2011/12, which included several very large and complex schemes, some applications which had only missed the target by days and some where there had been difficulties getting the s106 agreement signed, but he acknowledged there were some schemes which could have been better managed. While all of these applications could have benefited from a more efficient approach,  it was noted that some were always going to take longer than 13 weeks to determine, on account of their complexity.
• Mr Dorfman advised that performance in respect of appeals and approvals was positive, and that the service had introduced the Design Panel, more design assessments, more consultation, including pre-application discussions involving applicants and local residents, and was looking at the introduction of performance monitoring and management.

• The Committee thanked Mr Dorfman for his outline. It was acknowledged that, while the circumstances of the announcement could have been better, and the selection of the specific criterion on which it was based clearer, Haringey received relatively few major applications compared with some other boroughs, and performance on determining these within the 13-week target had not been acceptable.
•  Cllr McNamara asked whether it was the case that the Leader and Cabinet Member had been in possession of inaccurate information when they had challenged the DCLG’s figures; Mr Dorfman responded that the information on which the Secretary of State’s announcement was based had not been in the public domain at the time when the announcement had been made, and it had taken time to obtain the data from the DCLG in order to advise the Leader accordingly. It was agreed that a letter should be written to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to clarify what information he was provided with in order to respond to the Secretary of State, and whether this needed to be corrected at any point subsequently. In response to the direct question of whether the Cabinet Member had been provided with incorrect information at any point, Mr Dorfman replied that this was not the case.
• The Committee asked about the reasons behind the disappointing performance with regards to the determination  of major applications within 13 weeks. Mr Dorfman advised that in 2010/11 there had been very few major applications being submitted, and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To inform Members on Planning Enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery during the first half of 2012-13.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on planning enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery for the first half of 2012/13. Myles Joyce, Planning Enforcement Team Leader, advised that the report covered information up to the 30^th September 2012, and that the number of open cases should read 394.

• Mr Joyce advised that ‘minded to uphold’ with regards to an appeal meant that the applicant may receive planning permission on appeal, but would still be fined for breach of a planning enforcement notice.
• Mr Joyce reported that the service was looking to undertake some analysis of appeal decisions, as there appeared to be some discrepancy between appeal decisions in different areas of the borough as well as for reasons of quality control.
• It was reported that a POCA (Proceeds of Crime Act) case was heard and the Crown Court confiscated £141,000 from the defendants. A further POCA case is scheduled for next month. Another possible case may be in the pipeline, but was at an early stage. The Committee was pleased to note the use of POCA, and suggested that local ward councillors could be written to, to let them know when successful action had been taken in their area. It was also suggested that successes under POCA could be communicated at the landlords’ forum, or via social media sites such as Harringay Online, in order to spread the word when successful action had been taken.
• Tony Michael, Legal Services, advised that the Council received 18.75% of the amount awarded, but that there was a cost implication in reaching the point at which a reward was made, and it also depended on the amount being recoverable from the defendant. It was also noted that defendant could opt for a prison term rather than  pay the amount awarded.  Although that would not extinguish the debt,  further legal action (and consequently delay) would be sustained to actually recover the award.

To provide members with an overview of Planning Enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery from 2009-12 when broken down into constituent Area Forums and the cumulative weight of caseload and enforcement activity along with an update of cases received and closed for each ward and area for the first half of 2012-13.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on Planning Enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery from 2009-12 when broken down into constituent Area Forums, and the cumulative weight of caseload and enforcement activity. The report also gave an update of cases received and closed for each ward and area for the first half of 2012–13.

In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that there had been an increase in enforcement activity borough-wide including Northumberland Park and White Hart Lane, and this was reflected in the increase in cases and formal enforcement action. It was noted that the number of cases varied between wards as did formal enforcement activity, with less formal action in the west of the borough than the east, but with the proportion of cases resolved being similar, reflecting the different nature of breaches of planning between the two parts of the borough.

To advise the Committee of the threshold for requiring travel plans, guidance used to identify best practice and issues surrounding effective delivery.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the Council’s policy around the threshold for requiring travel plans, guidance used to identify best practice and issues surrounding effective delivery. The Committee was asked to consider and support the suggestion that applications requiring a travel plan not be validated until the plan was submitted, and that all travel plans be secured by s106 agreement, in order to strengthen the Council’s processes for requiring, implementing and monitoring travel plans.

The Committee welcomed the idea of strengthening the Council’s processes for monitoring travel plans, as enforcement around this issue was essential in order to avoid problems in future. In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that policy around travel plans was updated on a regular basis, in line with guidance issued by Transport for London. It was reported that this and other issues were looked at by the planning policy group, to ensure that policies were complementary and based on local evidence.

To advise the Committee of the policies and implementation issues surrounding low car and car free residential developments.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the policies and implementation issues surrounding low car and car free residential developments.

The Committee noted that whenever the issue of low car or car free developments came up in a planning application, this tended to be quite contentious, and tied in with the issue of CPZs.

It was felt that this was an issue which warranted longer discussion, and as the time was approaching 10pm, it was agreed that this item be adjourned to the next meeting of the Committee, and the remaining items on the agenda be deferred to the same meeting.

To provide information on how the planning application process works once an application is received, particularly centred on showing how an application is assessed, the timescales and the manner in which a decision is made in the context of National and local planning policy.

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

To advise the Regulatory Committee of the workings of the street naming and numbering process in new developments.

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

To advise the Committee on the role of Ward Councillors in discussions with planning officers and applicants.

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

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the special Licensing Sub Committees held on 18 October and 5 November be approved and signed by their respective Chairs.

The Chair advised the Committee that he was meeting with the Director of Place and Sustainability, the Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy and the Cabinet Member on a regular basis to feed back the views of the Committee. The Chair also encouraged Members of the Committee to accompany enforcement response officers on duty, as he had found this a valuable exercise. 

It was agreed that a date for the next meeting of the Committee should be sought for January or early February 2013.

The meeting closed at 10pm.