Agenda and minutes
Venue: Board Room 2 - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ. View directions
Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: None declared. |
|
Proposed introduction of greater gambling protections and controls PDF 131 KB The Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) is proposing, and consulting upon, the introduction of gambling protections and controls, including the creation of a separate planning use class containing betting shops. This report explains the limitations of the council’s current planning and licencing powers to control the spread of betting shops, and the implications of the proposed controls for Brent. It goes on to recommend the council support the DCMS proposal. Minutes: Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning, Regeneration and Growth) presented the report and explained that proposals for greater gambling protections and controls arose from a wider concern about the future of shopping areas. Members heard that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) was consulting on the proposals that included the creation of a separate planning use class containing betting shops. Presently, betting shops fell within A2 use class, meaning any premises with this permission could be converted to a betting shop without requiring planning permission. Under the new proposals, any new betting shop would require separate planning permission for such use.
Stephen Weeks advised that there had been a significant increase in particular amongst smaller betting operators in the borough and their tendency to cluster was affecting the vitality of town centres. Whilst it was not so evident that the number of betting shops amongst the three largest betting operators was increasing, they tended to want to extend their existing premises or find a larger building in order to be able to offer more services. Stephen Weeks drew members’ attention to the council’s proposed response to the DCMS consultation in appendix A of the report and advised that although the council agreed with DCMS’s proposals, it felt there should be further changes and that a separate use class for payday loan shops and pawnbrokers should be introduced as these also could have a similar negative impact on shopping areas. Stephen Weeks added that such businesses also tended to cluster and threaten the vitality of the area.
During members’ discussion, clarification was sought with regard to the role of planning legislation and licensing legislation in regulating gambling premises and whether the Gambling Act 2005 only required operators to prove they were fit to operate and not take into consideration the surroundings. It was queried how a separate class use for payday loan shops and pawnbrokers could be introduced and could any action be taken to reduce the number of existing betting operators in the borough. Another member enquired whether under previous legislation, it was the responsibility of the gambling operator to prove there was demand and had the subsequent relaxation in gambling regulation been the main cause for the explosion in the number of betting premises. He felt that the increase of betting premises in town centres and other shopping areas was detrimental and was responsible for taking money out of Brent’s economy as the costs to those who gambled reduced their spending power to purchase other items or services. He commented that although the proposed new legislation would help reduce the number of new gambling premises, he queried whether it could be used to reduce the number of betting premises already in existence, except possibly in situations where the existing betting operator wished to transfer to new premises. He indicated his support in respect of a separate use class for pawnbrokers and payday loan shops and agreed that such businesses often clustered, as well as betting shops. He also ... view the full minutes text for item 2. |
|
Appeals decision monitoring: 2013/2014 PDF 139 KB This report follows previous monitoring information presented to the Members and provides recent information and analysis of appeal decisions for 2013/2014. This information is also compared and collated with appeal decisions for 2012/2013. The report also evaluates how the council’s current policies are being used in determining planning applications. Minutes: Stephen Weeks presented the report and advised that the number of planning appeals allowed by the inspectorate in 2013/14 had risen by 9% compared to 2012/13. As a result of this, he advised that decisions particularly in respect of household applications needed to be revisited. Members noted that the Government had issued a temporary relaxation in respect of permitted developments in the hope that it would encourage the building industry and boost the economy. Stephen Weeks advised that a number of applicants were taking advantage of obtaining the opportunity for prior approval and these arrangements were due to remain until June 2016. The relaxation in permitted developments was impacting on the Planning Inspectorate’s decisions and had led to an increase in appeals being allowed. As a result, Stephen Weeks advised that the Planning Service would issue revised guidance on household applications relaxing some requirements and this would be put before the Planning Committee at a future meeting.
During discussion, a member enquired whether an additional extension to an existing extension on a house dwelling could be done under the current more relaxed planning regulations. Another member expressed interest in receiving a report providing information on funds that had been received from Section 106 agreements and whether it was possible for members to have access to Acolaid. It was queried whether residents were required to consult their neighbours in respect of prior approval applications. Another member asked whether it was possible for future reports to break down appeals allowed by application type. Reasons were sought of the occasions when the Planning Inspectorate had disagreed with the council’s decision. In acknowledging that most of the appeals involved household applications, a member asked what the processes for updating the council’s policy on design and neighbourhood amenities would be and how long would the consultation and subsequent implementation of the changes take. It was also asked what approach would be taken to household applications between now and the changes being introduced. Information was sought on the impact this would have on council policy and it was asked whether the permitted development policy applied to conservation areas.
A member asked what impact extensions had on green space and was there a policy to address this. A question was raised as to whether an increase in enforcement appeals was likely because applicants had not understood the changes to permitted developments and had not obtained prior approval. It was also queried whether permitted developments applied to flats. A member enquired on the costs of the appeal to the council. Another member asked if information could be provided on the council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 5 and SPG17.
In reply to the issues raised, Stephen Weeks advised that an additional extension to an existing one would be permitted providing the existing extension had been built as a permitted development and that the additional extension did not exceed that allowed under permitted development. Stephen Weeks informed members that Section 106 agreements did not apply to refused permissions and ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
Any other urgent business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.
Minutes: None.
The meeting ended at 8.20pm
COUNCILLOR S MARQUIS Chair |