Minutes:
The Panel received a verbal update along with a tabled presentation that provided an update on the timelines and development of the updated Local Plan. The presentation was given by Bryce Tudball, Head of Spatial Planning as set out in the tabled papers agenda pack. Cllr Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was present for this agenda item. The following arose as part of the discussion:
a. The Chair acknowledged the amount of work that had gone into the Local Plan to get it to this stage and welcomed a number of the positive changes that had been made. The Chair requested that officers provide some further comments about the reasons for the delays to date. In response, officers advised that the delays had been part of the feedback arising from the planning service peer challenge review and that the principal reason for this was around resources within the team. The Panel was advised that this had been acknowledged by senior management and the service now had a full complement of staff. Officers advised that the delays had allowed the service to respond to raft of changes put forward by the new government, and that the timescales for the Local Plan were now running in tandem with the London Plan.
b. The Chair sought assurances around the extent to which the emerging Local Plan could be used as a consideration when determining planning applications. Officers advised that once it had been published as a draft Local Plan in the summer, a limited amount of weight could be given to the new Local Plan when considering planning applications.
c. The Panel commented that the updated Local Plan had a lead-in time of seven years, and assurances were sought that it wouldn’t be out of date by the time it was in place. In response, officers acknowledged the lead-in time but gave assurances that by the time it was finalised in 2027 it would be very up to date, a lot of work had gone into future proofing the Local Plan. A lot of emphasis was being given to placemaking within the plan, rather than it being reactive.
d. The Panel sought assurances about whether there would be a greater emphasis on increasing the number of social housing units within the plan. Officers advised that they anticipated that the new plan would have stronger policies around having more properties for social rent, including more social rent properties in Tottenham and the east of the borough.
e. The Panel raised concerns with the number of very tall buildings that had been permitted in Tottenham Hale under the current Local Plan, and sought assurances that something similar wouldn’t happen in Wood Green under the new Local Plan. In response officers advised that the aim of consulting on a new Local Plan was to build up an evidence base from the consultation with which to base the borough’s planning priorities on. It was identified that the new Local Plan would, unlike the previous iteration, have a dedicated section that identified areas that were appropriate for tall buildings, and that some of these may be in Wood Green. Officers gave assurances that they did not believe that Wood Green would look like Tottenham Hale in respect of the concentration of tall buildings.
f. The Panel sought assurances around whether the new plan would enable environment goals, and specifically retro fitting. An example was given of a resident who was very keen to retrofit his home to improve its energy efficiency, but was unable to do so because he lived in a conservation area. In response, officers advised that one of the areas that would be substantially reinforced in the plan was the climate emergency and buildings sections. The vision was to have a leading retrofit policy within London. Officers acknowledged that there were some policy conflicts between retrofitting and conservation areas. It was suggested that solar PVs may be permitted in some circumstances. It was necessary to consider the specific character of a conservation area and how retrofitting would impact that area. For example, solar panels would not be suitable in a conservation area where one of its primary characteristics was the roofs of the buildings.
g. The Panel sought clarification about protected views in the borough and whether this applied to Alexandra Palace. In response, officers advised that there was a range of protected views in the borough, some of these were protected at the local level and some at the London level through the London Plan. The GLA were looking at strategic views, of which Alexandra Palace was one, but these were unlikely to change.
h. The Chair sought assurances around whether the new plan would include an enhanced focus on future proofing against extreme weather and flooding. In response, officers advised that there would be a specific chapter around climate resilience including flood risk and heat mitigation. It was commented that the current Local Plan did say much on these topics.
RESOLVED
Noted