Agenda item

A report on the work of the Planning Service during July to September 2020.

Rob Krzyszowski, Interim Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability, introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. Each service head would introduce their section of the report.

Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Planning, introduced the section of the report entitled Development Management, as set out in the agenda. Mr Hermitage amended the figure for the number of cases on-hand at the end of August 2020, which should have been 447 and not 513. He explained that there had been a peak in the number of enforcement complaints received during the lockdown period, as well as a backlog of sites.

Members of the Committee raised the following questions and observations on the report and appendices:-

·                In response to a question regarding the threshold for the overturns for refusals, it was explained that the threshold should remain at 10% or below. It was noted that it would currently take two or more losses to take the figure above the threshold.

·                The planning statistics for major applications were reported every quarter to MHCLG (The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) and every Council was also required to publish these on their website.

·                In response to a question regarding enforcement figures, it was explained that the service currently served on average around 90-110 notices per year. This meant that the Council had the 10^th highest number of notices served of any other local authority last year, and the 5^th highest the year before that.

·                It was confirmed that member training on conservation areas would be added to the list of future training topics.

·                Mr Hermitage would speak to the enforcement team to ensure that members were being sent out the results of enforcement cases, where requested, and would also follow up any of those requested personally by Councillor Bevan. It was confirmed that the two appeal sites pending related to the hardware store application on West Green Road and the demolition of a large 1920s house in Highgate.

·                With regard to the correct site address being given for the Bridge Castle Museum site, it was stated that some sites were subject to registered addresses, however Mr Hermitage agreed to take this away and look into the matter.

·                It was confirmed that the timescale for the determination of planning applications was dependent on the type of planning application. Minor and other applications was 8 weeks, Majors were 12 weeks and those with an environmental impact assessment took 16 weeks. The majority of applications were determined within the target of 56 days. It was noted that major applications that took a long time to determine, such as the new Tottenham Hotspur Football Ground, would have an impact on these figures. It was also confirmed that there had been no leeway given for any delays caused by Covid-19.

·                Reference was made to paragraph 5.12 of the report and it was confirmed that 10 council homes out of the 111 homes in total related to applications where the Council was the applicant.

Brice Tudball, Planning Policy Manager, introduced the section of the report entitled Planning Policy & Infrastructure plan policy update – pages 9-11 in the agenda.

Members of the Committee raised the following questions and observations on the report and appendices:-

·                In response to a concern raised that there was no recognition of industrial space in the borough and the provision of land for employment, it was explained that key issues of the supply and demand for employment land in the borough would be addressed in the Local Plan.

·                In response to a question regarding the sewage works at Pinkham Way, it was stated that there had been a lack of detail in the sub version of the NLWP (North London Waste Plan) regarding the list of appropriate uses for the site, potential flood risks across the site and suitable future development for the site.

·                Reference was made to CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) and whether the level could be increased again post Covid. In response, it was stated that an increase in CIL had been proposed for residential uses and some developments in the East of the borough, accompanied by a robust viability assessment. It was noted that Covid would be taken into consideration by the Inspector, however they would not be able to recommend that the Council reduce their rates post Covid.

·                In response to a question regarding the cycling and walking action plan and the school streets action plan, it was stated that they had not been referenced in the report as they were not within the pure planning remit. The cycling and walking action plan was due to go to Cabinet before the consultation took place and was expected to be adopted in 2021. The cycling and walking plan had actually been sped up as a result of Covid, due to the provision of temporary cycle routes. The school streets action plan had also been delayed and was expected to be published in Spring/Summer 2021. This was as a result of urgent interventions surrounding social distancing requirements outside schools. It was noted that there was capital in the capital programme, so the project was not reliant on TfL funding. 

·                It was explained that Highgate school had SPD (Supplementary Planning Documents), as there was a clear commitment in the local plan and imminent planning applications for the school. It was important to ensure that residents could engage in the SPD, following the initial approval by Cabinet in March 2020. The team were looking to restart the process soon.

Bob McIver, Head of Building Control, introduced the section of the report entitled Building – pages 11-13 in the agenda. Mr Iver stated that the income and applications received by the building control service had reduced as a result of Covid. However, they had started to see a rise in the number of applications received over the past 4 weeks. The service had also made an application to the Government’s compensation scheme due to the loss of income. 

Members of the Committee raised the following questions and observations on the report and appendices:-

·                It was recognised that some developers had chosen not to use the Council’s building control service and had decided to go to a private company. In response, Mr McIver was unsure of the reason for this but stated that there was around a 50/50 split of people using the Council and going to a private company, of which there were quite a few. It was believed that there was a number of reasons for this, with costs being a big consideration. The Council also carried out a number of inspections and some developers may choose to go elsewhere where there were not so many checks. He was currently working with colleagues in Development Management to try to resolve this problem.

·                In response to a question regarding the Grenfell inspection and the service’s expertise, Mr McIver confirmed that all of the surveyors within the service had undertaken their level 6 fire safety qualification. The Government had asked for a review, which had issued 53 recommendations, with one of the issues being the choice of provider. A Building Safety Bill was coming in for in-scope buildings, with a building safety review, to be undertaken by the Health & Safety Executive. Concern was raised regarding in-scope buildings and those without residential accommodation which were over 18m, which were not covered by the Local Authority building control team.

·                In response to a question regarding the workforce and the possibility of offering apprenticeships, it was stated that this had been discussed with HR. The suggestion had been to downgrade vacant building surveyor posts to allow an apprentice to come in. The issue being raised was that once the apprentice was trained and fully qualified, there was currently no post for them to go into and they often then left the Council to take up another opportunity elsewhere. This was an ongoing issue which the Chair also agreed to look into, in liaison with officers. 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.