Agenda item
The London plan - Comments on the consultation draft replacement plan
This report sets out comments on the consultation draft of the Replacement London Plan. The London Plan is legally part of the Council’s development plan and must be taken into account when planning decisions are taken. It is therefore important to comment on the Replacement Plan that will set planning policy for the whole of London and for this Borough in particular.
Minutes:
The Committee gave consideration to a report that set out comments on the consultation draft of the Replacement London Plan, a legal part of the council’s development plan when planning decisions were being made and a document that would set planning policy for the whole of London and for this borough in particular.
In setting out the time table for its adoption, the Head of Policy and Projects Dave Carroll informed the Committee that the deadline for submission of comments on the Replacement London Plan which was published in October 2009 for public consultation was 12 January 2010. The next stage would be an Examination in Public in summer-autumn of 2010 and the new plan being adopted probably in early 2011. The London Plan intended to replace the 2004 London Plan would be the framework for the development of London until 2031 integrating the Mayor’s transport, economic development, housing and cultural strategies as well as addressing other social and environmental issues. The Plan would also provide the policy context within which boroughs set their planning policies and the basis on which the Mayor would consider strategic applications referred to him. He then drew members’ attention to the comments on the key changes to policy.
Whilst welcoming the change in emphasis in giving boroughs more say in planning their boroughs, he expressed concerns about the objective to fund strategic matters through planning obligations and community Infrastructure levy (CIL). He continued that as set out in its comments, the Council supported the London Plan housing target, the minimum flat size standards in high density development, the ability to stop back garden development and the general aim of increasing affordable family housing although it was recognised that this would not be possible on every site.
It was noted that Wembley had been identified as a visitor destination in the London Plan without Mayor recognising its potential to deliver office floor space and other mixed use potential. In addition the Mayor should include other emerging areas of opportunity identified by the borough such as Alperton. He continued that the Council could not deliver its Gypsy site allocation without a clear understanding of the funding avenues needed to secure and develop such sites. He added that the Mayor needed to support development on suitable sites in order to address the shortage of school places and to lobby for appropriate funding, including the provision of local S106 funds that would take priority over strategic requirements. He also added that the Council supported the provision of decentralised energy networks but on condition that the Mayor worked with boroughs, government and energy providers to secure investment that would allow their provision earlier in the development process. Whilst the Council also supported retrofitting of existing stock it also needed a realistic assessment of resources to undertake such work to be identified.
In the discussion that followed, Councillor Hashmi, whilst supporting the stance on back garden development enquired as to why The Mayor had chosen to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2025 but not now. It was also suggested by the Chair that consideration ought to be given to building multi-storey gipsy sites, taking into account the shortage of building land in London. In responding to the above, Dave Carroll stated that it was not possible at this stage to apply the reductions in CO2 emissions as the Plan could not be adopted until 2012. He added that the phased change in emission levels had been favoured in order to reduce developers’ construction costs. On the suggestion for multi-storey gypsy sites, he felt that it could lead to problems of overcrowding. Councillor R Moher noted that the new arrangements for Section 106 planning gain coupled with the CIL would leave little for Brent to support strategic projects within the Borough. The Director of Planning added that the proposals in the London Plan would not derail the Council’s core strategy as arrangements would be in place to ensure that appropriate infrastructure was available to support projected population growth in London.
RESOLVED:-
that the comments set out in paragraphs 3.34 to 3.52 of the report be agreed as the council’s response to the Consultation Draft of the Replacement London Plan subject to any further amendment from the Executive.
Supporting documents: