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 meeting was not filmed or recorded.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sarah Williams.

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 13 below.

None.

Councillor Yvonne Say informed the Chair that she was a Councillor in Bounds Green ward, and had been lobbied by members of the Pinkham Way Alliance.  She also advised that in relation to agenda item 8, she was a resident in Tower Gardens.

Councillors Viv Ross and Justin Hinchcliffe also informed the Chair that they had been lobbied by members of the Pinkham Way Alliance.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2018.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2018 be approved as a correct record.

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

The Committee received a deputation from Stephen Brice and Evelyn Ryan of the Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) in relation to item 7 - North London Waste Plan - Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) Consultation.

Mr Brice addressed the Committee and outlined the main issues and concerns of the (PWA).  The new report did not provide any history, not did it make it clear that the Regulatory Committee were being asked to comment on a draft report to the Cabinet.  The PWA considered the proposal to be a continuing waste of money and referred to previous comments made by inspectors in relation to the removal of the site from the Council’s Site Allocations.  Two different consultants had advised that the site was unsuitable and unviable for employment use, and in 2012 an inspector had recommended that the site be reviewed for biodiversity.  Mr Brice requested that the Committee kept in mind when considering their comments on the report that the waste plan was 12 years old.

The Committee received a deputation from Stephen Brice and Evelyn Ryan of the Pinkham Way Alliance (PWA) in relation to item 7 - North London Waste Plan - Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) Consultation.

Mr Brice addressed the Committee and outlined the main issues and concerns of the (PWA).  The new report did not provide any history, not did it make it clear that the Regulatory Committee were being asked to comment on a draft report to the Cabinet.  The PWA considered the proposal to be a continuing waste of money and referred to previous comments made by inspectors in relation to the removal of the site from the Council’s Site Allocations.  Two different consultants had advised that the site was unsuitable and unviable for employment use, and in 2012 an inspector had recommended that the site be reviewed for biodiversity.  Mr Brice requested that the Committee kept in mind when considering their comments on the report that the waste plan was 12 years old.

Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, responded to the deputation as follows:

“I note your deputation is consistent with the Alliance’s previous representations to the Haringey Local Plan and earlier iterations of the North London Waste Plan. I recognise that you disagree with the conclusions that the Council and Planning Inspectors have reached on this site’s dual designation.  Nevertheless, that is the extant policy position for this site.

As provided for through the plan-making process, the PWA will have the right to make a detailed representation to the proposed site’s allocation within the Waste Plan, and to have this considered by an inspector at the “independent examination”, having regard to all other available evidence and views.

Whilst I am sorry that you disagree with the inclusion of the Pinkham Way site within the proposed North London Waste Plan, I am of the view that, in order to be open and transparent and arrive at an evidence based conclusion, the most appropriate way forward remains to consult on the plan as submitted.

The site has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Recommendation: That Regulatory Committee notes the contents of the North London Waste Plan and Associated documented in the appendices and puts forward any comments it may have for consideration at Cabinet.

Philip Crowther, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report as set out.  He informed the Committee that there was a range of criteria considered when identifying a site for waste use.  It was not proposed that any site be used wholly for waste use – around 20% of the 26 hectares of land identified across the borough would be used for waste use.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-      A small part of the Pinkham Way site, around 15%, was in flood zone 2, the rest was in flood zone 1.

-      The North London Waste Authority had not put forward a proposal on the type of waste facilities to be provided on site.

-      If a site were to be allocated in Haringey, there would be an increase in employment, and of business rates paid to the Council.  The Council would also look to secure a proportion of employment in the building and operation of the site for local people.

-      On any site where removal of trees was proposed, they would be replanted elsewhere.  The Council would always look to secure appropriate mitigation and improve biodiversity where possible.

Councillor Ross proposed that the Regulatory Committee put to the Cabinet that Pinkham Way be removed from the list of identified sites.  Councillor Cawley-Harrison seconded the proposal.  The Chair moved a vote, and with 6 members in favour and 5 against, it was:

RESOLVED that the report be recommended for consideration at Cabinet, with the request from the Regulatory Committee that Pinkham Way be removed from the list of identified sites.

Recommendation: That Regulatory Committee notes the contents of the Conservation Character appraisals and the local list in the appendices and puts forward any comments it may have for consideration at Cabinet.

Lucy Morrow, Assistant Planning Officer, introduced the report as set out.  The report was seeking comments from the Regulatory Committee before referral to Cabinet for approval to publish four draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan documents and the draft Local Heritage List for a six week public consultation.  The rational for publishing these was for good heritage management, and would help to manage local assets in a coherent and transparent way.  The appraisals included a description of the area and a review of the boundaries, and the Heritage List identified buildings of local importance.  The Committee were informed that there had been four Haringey owned schools included on the Heritage List, however these had been removed, as all had plans for works in the future.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-      Descriptions of areas had been provided by consultants – where there were corrections to be made, Ms Morrow would raise these outside of the meeting.  The consultants had also made the assessments in relation to the boundaries and whether an area could qualify for statutory designation.

-      Members could make suggestions for buildings to be added to the Local Heritage List as part of the consultation.

-      The street furniture list would not be updated as there were no new items to be included.

Councillor Bevan proposed that the Committee ask the Cabinet to reconsider the decision to remove Council owned buildings from the Local Heritage List due to concerns over the quality of any future building work.  Councillor James seconded the proposal.  The Chair moved a vote, and with 11 in favour and one abstention it was:

RESOLVED that the report be recommended for consideration at Cabinet, with the request from the Regulatory Committee that Cabinet reconsider the decision to remove Council owned buildings from the Local Heritage List due to concerns over the quality of any future building work.

Recommendation: That Regulatory Committee notes the contents of the Annual Monitoring Report 2017/18 at Appendix A and puts forward any comments it may have for consideration at Cabinet.

Clerks note: Cllr Basu left the meeting at 21.00

Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, introduced the report as set out. There was a statutory requirement for the Council to produce an annual report.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The target for building new housing was deliverable from the point of view of granting permissions, the issue was whether the developers built the housing.  The Council had objected to a proposal by the Mayor to increase the target.

-           Community Infrastructure Levy payments were only made once a scheme had been implemented, and Section 106 payments were made at various points from implementation of permission until completion.  There were no issues with the service collecting s106 or CIL payments, but the service could only collect money from applications that had been implemented.  Works had started or completed on around 5000 units.

-           There were specific areas where s106 money could be spent, and the service were making efforts to raise awareness with other services in the Council to encourage bids for funding from the s106 funds.

RESOLVED that the report be noted and referred to Cabinet for consideration.

Recommendations

a)         That this report be noted.

Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management, introduced the report as set out.  To date, 1770 planning applications had been made which was an increase of 46 applications compared to the same period in 2017/18.  There had been 42 appeals, 29 of which had been won, which was on average with other London boroughs.  The service was currently the best performing service in London, with 100% performance on major applications and 98% performance on minor applications.  The pre-application advice service was providing a key income stream for the department. 

Bob McIver, Head of Building Control Services, updated the Committee on Building Control.  515 fee earning applications had been received to date, which was an increase compared to previous years.  Site inspections had increased by 20%.  The Hackett review had made 53 recommendations, and an action plan put in place.  There were a number of things that would need to be implemented, and an update would be provided at a later date to the Committee.

Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, advised the Committee that currently there was a consultation running asking for priorities for the spend of the neighbourhood element of Community Infrastructure Levy funds. 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Recommendation: That Regulatory Committee note the contents of the Enforcement Plan and provides any comments for officers to consider prior to publication.

Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, advised the Committee that she had not received any comments from members since the report was provided at the last Committee meeting. Cllr Mitchell agreed to provide comments separately after the meeting.

RESOLVED that the Enforcement Plan be noted.

For the Committee to note.

The Committee noted the item.

To consider any new items of urgent business admitted under agenda item 3 above.

None.

20 November 2018 (new)

21 January 2019

Noted the dates of future meetings.