Agenda item

To consider a report on the work of the Planning Service for Quarters 1 and 2.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability introduced the report which provided an update on the work of the Planning Service for Quarters 1 and 2.

The Head of Development Management provided an update in relation to development management as set out in the report. It was noted that applications had increased by approximately 15% but that performance remained high, with 100% for major applications and good rates for other categories. It was highlighted that there had been roughly a 30% increase in other applications and that, although the service was under significant pressure, the average time for decisions had reduced from 87 to 81 days. It was noted that the service had introduced a fast track process for certificates of lawfulness, with decisions made within five working days, which had received positive reviews.

The Committee heard that the council had been subject to a number of overturns of refusals in relation to major applications, with a figure of 10%. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had confirmed that the council had avoided designation this year. However, it was noted that the council had recently lost an appeal in relation to 300-306 West Green Road which was not yet included in the statistics in the report. It was noted that this could impact the next assessment and would be a risk for next year. It was added that there would be significant pressure for the service to process major applications to prevent reaching the level for designation. The Head of Development Management explained that the reason for refusal in relation to 300-306 West Green Road was the design, density, and the effect on neighbouring properties; it was added that there had been no cost implications for the council.

Attention was drawn to page 35 of the agenda pack and it was enquired why the figures relating to the total number of applications did not add up to 100%. The Head of Development Management explained that this was due to the fact that some applications were withdrawn or were not determined and not appealed.

In relation to the appeals that had been allowed, the Head of Development Management explained that there were two ‘Ashley Houses’ and that the appeal labelled as ‘Ashley House’ related to Ashley Road, Tottenham, and that this was also known as Ashley Park. It was noted that the Goods Yard application had been appealed for non-determination but it was queried whether this had been presented to the Planning Sub Committee. The Head of Development Management confirmed that the reasons for refusal in relation to the Goods Yard application had been brought to the Planning Sub Committee and had been effectively considered as a recommendation to refuse after an appeal had been submitted. It was confirmed that the decision in relation to 423-435 Lordship Lane had been made by officers under delegated powers.

The Head of Development Management explained that only one category was currently close to the threshold for designation and that there would be a right of reply if the council went over this level. It was noted that the council had strong levels of performance and that this would make a good case; alternatively, the level could be reduced by processing additional major applications if possible.

The Interim Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure provided an update in relation to planning policy and infrastructure. It was noted that, following the government white paper on planning reforms, there had been no further updates yet. It was commented that there had been some updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which reflected an increased focus on design and more detail in relation to the environment and climate change. It was added that there was a new London Plan which had been published in March 2021 and now formed part of the development plan for the borough. It was also noted that there had been some significant changes in national policy relating to affordable housing in that 25% of all housing delivered through section 106 obligations were required to be first homes; these were effectively discount market sale units.

It was noted that there had been some significant changes to the planning Use Classes Order in 2020. In addition, the government had announced plans to introduce a new permitted development right to allow a change of use from any Class E (commercial, business, and service use) to Class C3 (residential use). The Interim Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure noted that the council had confirmed an Article 4 Direction to restrict changes of use from offices to residential without full planning permission. It was explained that this applied to major town centres and designated growth areas. However, it was clarified that, due to the government introduction of the new permitted development right, the Article 4 Direction would only have effect until July 2022. It was explained that officers were exploring the possibility of confirming a new Article 4 Direction, including monitoring the actions of other boroughs and the responses they were receiving from the Secretary of State. It was noted that the NPPF requirements for Article 4 Directions had been increased but that it should be possible with a more tightly focused proposal with robust evidence.

It was highlighted that a new Local Plan was being developed and that engagement had started, in particular the Local Plan Member Working Group had been reconvened. It was explained that the Local Plan would require a strong evidence base and that this was being developed by the Planning Policy Team. It was also noted that the council had published a Housing Delivery Test Action Plan to set out how housing would be delivered in terms of additional quantity and faster timescales.

It was reported that a partial review of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule was currently in the final stage of development. It was noted that the charging schedule had been submitted about a month ago and it was expected to be examined in public in early 2022. It was highlighted that this proposed changes in the east of the borough only, with an increase in CIL charges from £15 to £50 per square metre.

It was enquired how the new ward boundaries for 2022 would impact the CIL charges. The Interim Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure stated that ward boundaries were incidental to CIL charging to some extent but that there would be a more comprehensive review in future which could look at the consistency in relation to the new ward boundaries. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability added that ward boundaries were more relevant to CIL spending than charging. It was noted that communities would be consulted before new CIL spending but that, as there had been spending in March 2020, some additional time would be required to allow the CIL funds to be high enough. It was anticipated that the next round of spending would be in 2022.

In response to a query about the requirement to provide first homes, it was confirmed that first homes were classified as intermediate tenure and would, in effect, replace shared ownership. It was commented that the Greater London Authority (GLA) was not overwhelmingly supportive of first homes and it was unclear whether the industry would be supportive. It was noted that first homes would need to be considered as part of the new Local Plan, including their impact on viability, tenure mix, and the needs of the borough.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability provided an update in relation to building control. It was explained that the details were generally comparable to previous years and that the current market share for Building Control was 68%; this was higher than previous years and suggested that the local authority service was performing well. It was added that the service had recently appointed an apprentice and was looking to recruit a second apprentice and that this would improve the sustainability of the staffing resource.

It was commented that a Building Safety Bill had been introduced to Parliament over the summer but had not yet been confirmed. It was noted that members had received a briefing on this issue and would continue to be updated on progress and any implications.

Cllr Cawley-Harrison noted that the council had written to a number of landlords about required works and enquired whether there had been a good level of responses. It was noted that there had been a number of responses and that the Head of Building Control Services would provide a detailed response to this query.

RESOLVED

To note the report.