Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD. View directions
Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk, tel. (020) 8937 1354
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. |
|
This report explains the recent Government consultation on relaxation of the planning rules for change of use from commercial to residential use, sets out the Council’s response by officers and asks Committee for its endorsement. Minutes: Ken Hullock the Policy Manager introduced the report which explained the recent Government consultation on relaxation of the planning rules for change of use from commercial to residential use and the Council’s response made by officers. He informed members that as the consultation deadline was 30 June 2011, officers submitted a response on behalf of the Council a copy of which was appended to the report. Members could however suggest amendments which could be forwarded to the DCLG consultation team.
In outlining the key proposals, he stated that the proposals were to introduce permitted development rights to allow changes of use from B1 (business – offices, research and development premises and light industry) to C3 (dwelling houses) to take place without the need for planning applications. He continued that the consultation document highlighted that there was a strong case for making changes of use from B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) to C3 (dwelling houses) permitted development and hinted at an opportunity to build on the current situation by converting unused space above a shop into a flat.
Ken Hullock emphasised that the proposals related only to change of use and where a development required any additional work to the exterior of an existing building, or was a new build development, a planning application would be required in the normal way. He advised members that building regulations consent would still be required despite the proposals. He added that the Government’s stated aim of the consultation was to minimise all unnecessary regulation and ensure that good quality proposals were not delayed by the planning system. It was the Government’s belief that greater freedoms would also encourage the more efficient use of land and buildings through enabling more direct responses to clear price signals and encourage developers to bring forward more proposals for housing.
Members noted that the proposals contained within the consultation could lead to loss of income to the Planning Services and encourage developers to patch up sub-standard properties to let, resulting in poor quality accommodation and housing conditions. This was particularly thought to be the case for the less well off thus resulting giving rise to diversity implications. The Policy Manager informed members similar concerns had been expressed by other local authorities about the proposals. He continued that in addition to their concerns, the proposals could mean loss of New Homes Bonus to the Council at a time it could ill afford.
RESOLVED:
That the response made by officers to the consultation be endorsed.
|
|
Localism Bill & Neighbourhood Plans PDF 194 KB This report provides an update on the Localism Bill and in particular anticipated changes to local plan-making as a result of the proposal for Neighbourhood Plans. The report also provides details of an emerging neighbourhood plan proposed for Sudbury. Minutes: Members received a report that provided an update on the Localism Bill and in particular anticipated changes to local plan-making as a result of the proposal for Neighbourhood Plans. The report also provided details of an emerging neighbourhood plan proposed for Sudbury. Ken Hillock, Policy Manager informed the Committee that the Localism Bill would introduce wide ranging changes to the powers and responsibilities of local government in a push to decentralise power from central government. The Bill was currently being considered by the House of Lords and subject to amendments it would become an Act of Parliament. He highlighted the main changes included in the Localism Bill; general powers of competence, local government funding, governance arrangements, the right to challenge and buy community assets, housing reform and planning reform. He then focussed on the key provisions of the Bill affecting the planning system including; abolition of regional strategies, a new National Planning Framework and Neighbourhood Plans.
He referred to amendments to the Localism Bill which included a new clause (124) which required planning authorities to have regard to material considerations including finance when considering planning applications. It was noted with concern that financial considerations were being given prominence by the amendment which would go contrary to a fundamental principle of planning that unacceptable development should not be permitted because of inducements or financial benefits. The amendment could also lead to public suspicion that permissions were being bought and sold. Members also noted that a key element of planning reform was the introduction of Neighbourhood Plans as a new tier to the planning system. While the new Neighbourhood Plans will have equal status as other parts of the development plan such as the Core Strategy, they would need to be in line with strategic policies. The local authority would be required to provide support and advice to neighbourhoods undertaking neighbourhood planning which might include gathering relevant evidence or advising on consultation
Ken Hullock updated members that the planning department had been approached by members of Sudbury Town Residents Association (STRA) who wish to develop a Neighbourhood Plan and apply for the government’s Neighbourhood Planning Frontrunners scheme. £20,000 grant would be available for assisting communities in creating a Neighbourhood Plan. An application for the Frontrunners scheme would be made by the council on behalf of STRA. Should it be successful, the council will receive the grant which would then be available for STRA to fund production of the plan, including professional fees. He added that planning officers had recommended a boundary for the neighbourhood planning area which would be included in the Frontrunners application (Appendix 1). Should the application be successful, the boundary would need to be formally agreed by the council.
Members noted that the proposal for supporting neighbourhood plans was no advantage to the Council as it would involve a drain on resources including officer time. Chris Walker, Director of Planning added that neighbourhood plans were more likely to be suitable to parish areas and would be challenging in built ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
LDF - Wembley Area Action Plan PDF 453 KB Having adopted the Core Strategy of the LDF in July 2010 and with the Site Specific Allocation DPD to be adopted this month, it is now proposed to produce a Wembley Area Action Plan as agreed by the Executive in November 2010. This report explains progress to date and how it is proposed that the Plan be taken forward. Minutes:
Ken Hullock, Policy Manager introduced a report that explained progress to date in producing a Wembley Area Action Plan as agreed by the Executive in November 2010 and how the Plan was proposed to be taken forward. He outlining the progress to date he stated that officers had begun the process of gathering evidence and were currently drafting Issues and Options papers which was intended to form the basis of the initial public consultation. Views will be sought from residents and other stakeholders on what they think ought to be in the Plan. It was intended that the consultation would take place in September. Ken Hullock drew members’ attention to a number of issues identified for consideration during the public consultation as set out in the report which would be added to the final consultation before it was agreed. He also drew members’ attention to the timetable for preparing the area action plan adding that due to a reduction in available resources, the timetable had changed from that originally agreed by the Executive. He continued that the on-going gathering of information would end in December 2011, the draft plan to Committee in February 2012 and adoption by July 2013.
In the ensuing discussion, Councillor Hashmi emphasised the need for adequate car parking spaces in town centres, the merits in ensuring that buses were allowed to drive into retail and town centres and the supply of affordable housing in the area. In responding to the above, Ken Hullock stated that there was a need to balance the impact of cars which would also require road improvements. He added that a business case would need to be put before the bus companies for his suggestion to be accepted. He continued that due to the downturn in economic activity and the consequent reduction in bigger developments, it was not always feasible to secure more affordable homes as part of a development.
Councillor Singh suggested that measures be taken to ensure cheaper public transport fares and thus encourage more people to the town centre. Councillor McLennan noted the proliferation of betting shops in the Wembley area and enquired about stricter planning controls that could be adopted to curb their growth in Wembley. Councillor Van Kalwala referred to the growing number of student accommodation in the area and expressed concerns that this could materially alter the character of the Wembley area.
In responding to the above, the Policy Manager stated that issues about public transport fares were not within the remit of the Council. With respect to the growth of betting shops, he stated that (see Horatio for legal reasons). He continued that planning applications granted and to be submitted for student accommodation were around the stadium area which did not have any special character and where it was felt that students would be better able to cope with the impact of the activities from stadium and arena.
Councillor Kabir noted the diversity implications of the report and suggested that the involvement of ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
Alperton Masterplan - Supplementary Planning Document PDF 144 KB This report sets out the consultation process carried out and the representations made on the draft Alperton Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (“the draft SPD”). The report also sets out the proposed officer responses to the consultation representations and proposed changes to the draft SPD as a consequence. Additional documents:
Minutes: Beth Kay, Regeneration Officer (Major Projects) introduced the report that set out the consultation process carried out and the representations made on the draft Alperton Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (“the draft SPD”) and the proposed officer responses to the consultation representations. She reminded the Committee that the Alperton “growth area” was a strip of brownfield land along the Grand Union Canal from Middlesex House in the west to the border with the Northfield Industrial Estate in the east, encompassing some of the poorest quality industrial land in the borough. She continued that the council owned very little of the land identified and so cannot physically deliver the change on its own and therefore the draft SPD was a planning document developed to inform and influence developers in the types of development the council would consider appropriate in Alperton.
She drew members’ attention to a number of responses received following the consultation and officer responses as set out in the report which included social and physical infrastructure, housing and overcrowding, transport congestion and improved public transport and the requirement to work with the community through to completion. Beth Kay added that the responses had been incorporated into the draft for which members’ support was being sought.
In the ensuing debate, Councillor McLennan enquired as to whether the vision would conflict with the wider regeneration proposals for the Wembley area and whether health facilities would be provided for the Alperton growth area. Councillor Kabir in reference to the canal emphasised the need for partnership working with British Waterways and in the same vein, the Chair enquired about the use of the canal for transportation.
In responding to the above, Dave Carroll Major Projects Manager clarified that Wembley and Alperton would maintain different emphasis with the Alperton growth area which currently comprised of industrial units focussing on lower level family housing units of 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling units aimed at young families. He continued that in addition to the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) discussions would be held with potential developers with a view to getting them to fund the health facilities within the area. Members were advised that the vision had the support of the British Waterways and that opportunity for exploring the transport use of the canal was being explored subject to viability issues. Dave Carroll confirmed that the vision was envisaged to be completed in stages and in partnership with landowners who were keen to see the Masterplan progressed to adoption. He advised members that there were no plans within the vision for a free school to be built on the site and in response to the Chair’s enquiry on transport improvements, stated that such improvements tended to take place after new homes had been built.
RESOLVED:
(i) that the proposed responses to the consultation representations and amendments to the draft masterplan SPD as outlined in section 4.0 and detailed in appendix 3 of the report be supported;
(ii) that the council’s Executive be recommended to adopt ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
Future of Planning Committee Site Visits PDF 114 KB This report sets out some options for consideration by members that will ensure a continuation of visits but with a focus on reducing the number of visits, confining attendance at the visits to members of the Committee, and looking at alternatives to the regular Saturday morning arrangements in advance of the Committee meeting. As changes would have implications for the Planning Code of Conduct, any decision to change arrangements would require a decision by the full Council Minutes: Chris Walker, Assistant Director of Planning introduced the report that set out some options for consideration by members that would ensure a continuation of visits but with a focus on reducing the number of visits, confining attendance at the visits to members of the Committee, and looking at alternatives to the regular Saturday morning arrangements in advance of the Committee meeting. He advised that as changes would have implications for the Planning Code of Conduct any decision to change arrangements would require a decision by the full Council. He referred the deliberations of the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) which requested a further report on site visits with a view to their reduction and being confined to members. The Assistant Director also highlighted concerns expressed by some members over the burden of site visits on Saturday mornings and the need to examine an alternative option of mid-week site visits.
At the start of member discussions Councillor Singh expressed a view that Saturday site visits were more appropriate particularly for members who were working full time. He continued that due to the impact that some smaller developments may have on adjoining properties, site visits for smaller developments should be maintained. Councillor McLennan expressed similar views in her support for site visits on Saturday mornings and added that visits to sites where it was felt that the proposed development would result in adverse serious socio-economic impact should be continued.
The above views were also shared by Councillors Cummins who went on to add that any changes to mid-week site visits could have resource implication for the Council. In a similar vein Councillor Daly supported the retention of Saturday site visits but went on to suggest an amendment that the applicant or their agent should be in attendance at site visits to provide access and if requested by the Committee, to explain aspects of the proposed development. Councillor Hashmi also expressed a view members should continue with site visits to proposals for large developments even though there may be a single objector involved. Councillor RS Patel however supported a shift towards mid-week site visits so as to avoid clashes with member surgeries which took place on Saturday mornings. Councillor Kabir added that it was incumbent on all members to check the websites to familiarise themselves with the applications that may concern their wards and emphasised the usefulness in officers giving clarity to members on what constituted major developments. Members then voted on the recommendations which were agreed as amended by Councillor Daly as set out below.
RESOLVED:
(i) that the following changes to the way site visits are carried out be agreed:
a) To have site visits to more major developments (with residential schemes normally over 10 new dwellings);
b) To restrict attendance at site visits to members of the Committee and relevant officers, with the applicant (or their agent) in attendance to provide access and if requested by the Committee to explain aspects of the scheme;
c) That consideration be given ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
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 9:10pm
K SHETH Chair |