Cabinet member for Planning to attend to answer questions within this portfolio.
Minutes:
7.1 The Cabinet member for Planning outlined some of the key planning documents on which the Planning Service was currently focused:
7.2 It was also reported that in respect of planning applications all majors and 83% of minor planning decisions were on track and within planning timeframes. This is significant progress, especially in respect of major planning applications. It was also noted that a number of major applications totalling in excess of £1billion are currently being dealt with within the service, these include:
· Tottenham Hotspur Football Club;
· Apex House;
· Bruce Grove Station;
· Tottenham Hale - Hale Wharf and Techno Park.
7.3 Building control was performing well with a high demand for this service, which was indicative of quality of service on offer given that local residents can go to any provider for this service. The panel also noted that Tottenham Hotspur were using this in house service which provided a further vote of confidence.
7.4 Other key issues to note in the planning service included:
· Highgate Neighbourhood Plan engagement was still ongoing;
· Crouch End Neighbourhood Forum has been submitted and was being prepared for consideration by Cabinet in December;
· The joint local authority waste plan (North London Waste Authority) consultation closed and the borough has submitted its own comments;
· The Noel Park Area Conservation Plan had been well received by the community, with positive comments from Historic England and is due to be considered by Cabinet in November;
7.5 The panel also raised a number of issues with the Cabinet member and senior officers and a summary of the main of the main discussion points is provided below. It was noted that recruitment and retention of planning staff remained a significant issue for Haringey and indeed, other London boroughs. A substantive increase in the volume of development had continued to lead to nationwide shortages of planning staff.
7.6 It was reported to the panel that the planning service has recently consulted on a restructure for the planning service. A key aim of this restructure was to help retained staff to progress and develop within the organisation, but also to help recruit and retain young graduates who will be provided with development support within the service.
7.7 It was reported to the panel that a Team Leader for the east of the borough had been recruited and replaces a historically vacant post which has been filled by an agency planner. Deputies are also being recruited to these posts. A key aim of these appointments is to build relationships within these areas, which is much easier to do with permanent appointments.
7.8 Staffing remains a major challenge however, as the local authority is not only competing against other planning services for well qualified planning officers, but also with the private sector, who in general, can offer much more lucrative packages than public sector employers. The service has also held discussions with Human Resources to explore the possibility of recruiting from outside London and the incentives which may support this.
7.9 The panel also discussed whether the perception of Haringey was possible influence on recruitment or were judgements to apply for posts here based solely on pay and conditions. It was noted that the a benchmarking exercise had revealed that pay for team leader roles was substantially below London average and the restructure has sought to address that.
7.10 The panel discussed the Haringey proposition, the local offer to attract planning officers. It was clear that perceptions were changing and with the advent of major planning decisions to be taken within the service (e.g. Tottenham Hotspur, High Road West, Cross Rail 2, Wood Green) these could add additional kudos and appeal to working in the service.
7.11 It was noted that the solution to staff and recruitment and retention issues was likely to be a long-term and would require further work on the supply side of this equation, in particular the creation of local education and training opportunities.
7.12 In times of high demand for planning officers, the impact of recruitment agencies on local pay and condition can be significant in that agency staff working may be in receipt of a premium rate over and above local rates. As a consequence, it was not uncommon to report that there are examples where agency staff are earning more than managers. In this context, the ability for local authorities to recruit and retain permanent staff is further inhibited.
7.13 At present, the panel noted that there are more temporary and agency staff than there are permanent staff in the department. Exit interviews would suggest that for many, financial considerations are of paramount importance, particularly in relation to the high cost of living in London (e.g. housing). As a consequence, a lot of time is spent listening to junior planners to identify future aspirations and how these can be met, within the organisation.
7.14 the panel also discussed the councils performance in respect of planning appeals, and the proportion of decisions which were allowed and disallowed. It was noted that currently, the council has won 64% of planning appeals, and the performance of local planning services are published by the DCLG every quarter.
7.15 In respect of outcomes of appeals, overall performance is reported to Regulatory Committee and the outcomes are reported on the planning service website. In respect of appeals performance, it was noted that Haringey is in line with London average. The panel noted that planning was currently a very dynamic policy field which may impact on both the nature and volume of planning appeals going forward.
Agreed: (1) Planning appeal performance and outcome information would be sent to members. (2) That local analysis of planning appeal outcomes to assist in the identification of any patterns or trends would be provided to the panel.
7.16 The panel discussed the Crouch End Neighbourhood Forum and noted that there have been ongoing discussions with the group, including comments on the draft bid. There is only one application expected for this area which will make things more straight forward and the planning service have been meeting with the shadow forum to assess their expectations for the area. This report is expected to be considered at Cabinet in November.
7.17 Starter Homes are expected to be included within the new Housing & Planning Bill (published 13th October). The bill will promote the development of Starter Homes, available to qualifying first-time-buyers at a discount of at least 20% less than the market value and Councils will have a specific duty to promote the supply of Starter Homes (including the preparation of local plans). The full ramifications of this section has yet to be fully assessed, but this could have a substantial impact in the way the council delivers affordable housing.
7.18 It was noted that budget reductions to be implemented within the consultation budget in 2016/17 would result in fewer consultation letters being distributed as a part of the planning consultation process. In preparation for this, the Statement of Community Involvement has been updated and is due to be agreed by Full Council early in 2016. Early indications are that people are already transferring on-line and other channels of communication are being explored. It should be noted that consultation is not being reduced just that different mediums of consultation will be used.
7.19 There was a broad discussion of the role of members of the public at Planning Committee. The panel voiced concerns that members of the public attending planning committee can sometimes feel that their opinion is not valued or worthwhile in considering planning applications as this invariably overridden by planning officer or legal advice. Whilst accepting that there are specific grounds on which applications can be challenged, the panel were of the view the rejection of such comments could be undertaken more sensitively. Given the narrow confines through which to influence planning applications at this stage of the planning process, the panel questioned whether there is a better way of involving the public at the Planning Committee.
7.20 The panel noted that by the time that an application comes to Planning Committee it is very difficult for Planning Committee to vary any plans or conditions, and if such conditions were altered, this could also be expensive for the developer to implement such changes. In this context, the importance of early involvement and comment in planning applications was emphasised to ensure that any planning concerns are incorporated into plans at the outset.
7.21 Understanding that this Planning Committee is a quasi-judicial process and that there are specific grounds on which planning applications can be challenged, officers also have to be mindful of not putting the Council in a position in which it can be legally challenged, which may expose the council to financial risks and losses.
7.22 The panel noted that the Planning Service were trying to get the community involved further forward in the planning process and this is embodied in the new Local Plan which is due to be considered at Cabinet. This creates a Development Charter which stipulates 5 essential tests for new development:
built; and
7.23 Of particular importance is provision 3, ‘confidently addresses feedback from local consultation’ which stresses the need that developers should identify what action they have taken as a result of community engagement. The updated Statement of Community Involvement also restates the importance of pre-application consultation. The Planning Service is trying to embed the community’s voice in the planning process and to introduce tests for the developer to ensure that this takes place.
7.24 The panel also noted that a high calibre design panel has been appointed, with an independent chair. Different planning disciplines also sit on this panel which incorporates a range of interests and where individually representatives have a lot of experience in the industry. A majority of applications are brought before this panel for comment and input to help improve schemes before they go to Planning Committee.
7.25 The AD for Planning noted the concerns of the panel and said that these would be reported back to the service.
Resident Question
7.26 Under agreed procedure rules a local resident was allowed to set a question to the Cabinet member. The question is as set out below:
I believe strongly that planning policy should favour the siting of businesses - especially small businesses - in places near where their employees can live. This is good for people’s quality of life (by reducing commuting time), for their health (because they are likely to walk or cycle to work) and for the environment (by reducing emissions due to motorised transport, whether public or private).
At the moment, planning policy favours the exact opposite, seeking to site businesses in large dedicated developments, which are often a long way away from where people work. The only businesses that are expected to be sited near homes are shops and schools, as opposed to manufacturers or service industries which sell nationwide or worldwide).
In my opinion, London in general and Haringey in particular should reverse a century of “zoning” policy in favour of mixing business and residential development.
The proposed destruction of the Courtyard at Lynton Road and its replacement by a purely residential development is exactly the sort of thing we should NOT be doing.
7.27 The panel noted that as part of the Mayoral Plan, the Council has to create over 15,200 new homes, 22,500 new jobs and 35 hectares of employment space, so in this context the Council is wishing to retain employment land where it can. The panel noted that it wanted to protect employment land and has a number of policies in place and in progress to support this. Mixed land usage is a way forward to help maintain employment space as the creation of large industrial areas is not practical. The panel noted that there was no intention of removing the employment status of the area in question.
7.28 Local plans to help improve balance between employment and housing space locally face significant national ‘headwinds’. The government has already made it a permitted development to convert office space to housing, following earlier decisions to allow the conversation of storage and warehouse sites for housing. To counteract this, a report has gone to Cabinet to seek an Article 4 Direction to restrict warehouse conversions. From an economic viability perspective, the panel also noted that the potential revenues from the creation of small business space would not be sufficient to support such development alone, and that some other form of cross-subsidy with housing development should be considered (possibly by increasing the intensity of development).
7.29 In respect of the Lynton Road site the expectation the panel noted that it will be redeveloped but with additional employment floor space at an affordable level, cross subsidised by residential development. This does pose issues around build density and the impact that this will have on the amenity of to existing residents and businesses (e.g. parking). The panel noted that these were difficult challenges though there were limited opportunities to develop dedicated new employment space.
7.30 The panel recognised however, that national and regional policy drivers which promote housing development should not be underestimated as there have been considerable pressures to convert local employment space to residential (e.g. office to residential now a permitted development). This is recognised in the Local Plan so when new plans are submitted to develop employment land, these are encouraged to continue to provide for employment space alongside any new housing development. If this is not possible, then financial compensation is paid by the developer to support the creation of other employment facilities elsewhere.
7.31 It was noted that as local neighbourhood plans develop, these may provide some additional protection for local business spaces alongside other local features which determine the character of that area. This could be a further option for Lynton Road once the Crouch End Neighbourhood Plan is agreed.
7.32 In response, the local resident indicated that the mixed usage approach to Lynton Road site was welcomed.
Agreed: That the Assistant Director for Planning would provide further details of plans for the Lynton Road site, including any alterations since the publication of the Site Allocation Strategy.