Agenda item

Report of Director of Policy, Performance and Communications and Director of Planning (to follow).

5.1      The Committee received a report which provided an overview of the planning system in the Council, outlining the role of planning policy and the development management (planning application) process. The report highlighted key changes and priorities from the Cabinet Member for Planning & Public Realm and described the policy context to these at the local, London-wide and national levels.

5.2      The Committee in considering matters relating to this topic heard from Barry Smith, Head of City Policy & Strategy and John Walker, Director of Planning.  The Committee also took into account a written submission from the St John’s Wood Society.    

5.3      Mr Smith, in his introduction, made the point that if there were any areas within the report which the Committee wished to look at in more detail in the Work Programme this was an opportunity to flag these up.  Mr Smith and Mr Walker emphasised that the report was a brief guide to the planning process.  Mr Walker advised that Members were offered bespoke training where the process was explained in more detail.  The Chairman recommended that planning officers write to the 2014 intake of Westminster Councillors to inform them of the training available.          

5.4      The Committee asked a number of questions to Mr Smith and Mr Walker, including the following:

·           How did Mr Walker see his department evolving?  Mr Walker replied that there was a greater focus and emphasis on use of each site, including scrutinising every application for affordable housing.  Affordable housing would still be subject to viability assessments.  The aim was that the developers deliver closer to what was recommended by the viability consultant rather than this being a matter for extensive negotiation.

·           Would the meeting notes of developers’ pre-application and application engagement with councillors as referred to in the Guidance Note in the agenda papers be available to the Planning Committee when considering the application?  Mr Walker replied that he believed that was the intention.  It was likely to be included in the background papers.

·           Would it be possible to receive an update every meeting on progress regarding delivering housing, including affordable housing, through the planning process?  Mr Smith advised that there was a statutory duty to produce an Authorities Monitoring Report where the Council was required to report on delivery of key policy areas, including data on housing permitted.  It would be possible to provide the necessary information to the Committee when the Report was produced.  He added that there would be a time lag and the evidence of any changes from the renewed focus on delivering housing was unlikely to be seen until approximately fifteen or eighteen months’ time.  Ms Dindjer, Policy and Scrutiny Manager, brought to the Committee’s attention that Councillor Astaire was due to appear before the Committee twice a year and one option was to include the housing updates in the Cabinet Member Update prior to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Public Realm attending the Committee meeting.  It was agreed that the appropriate way in which to provide the requested information would be discussed between Mr Smith, Mr Walker and Councillor Astaire.

·           Mr Walker was asked by Councillor Dimoldenberg about the potential of keeping a record to show from the beginning to the end of the development management (planning application) process (from the applicant’s proposed scheme to what was finally developed, including the discussions which took place with officers).  He replied that the Council did not have the resources to carry out an audit of the applications as it had done in the past.  Officers did not store documents such as drawings.  He added that it was possible however to keep one or two such examples of the full extent of the planning applications process for Member training purposes.  Councillor Dimoldenberg raised the point that he believed it would be of value speaking to the WPA about financing the maintenance of the record of the planning application process.  It was agreed that the WPA would be contacted on this point. 

·           Would it be the policy to refuse owners of new properties a residents’ parking  permit?  Mr Smith replied that this would be examined as part of the City Plan review over the next eighteen months to two years.

·           Residents had particular concerns about the impact of delivery companies, including the noise they created from motorbikes in residential areas.  Could conditions be attached to planning decisions in order to protect residents?  Mr Walker replied that there were many instances of restrictive conditions being placed on premises which wished to provide deliveries.  The conditions were considered on a case by case basis.

·           Mr Walker clarified that officers did send a list of applications which were being considered at future planning committee meetings to councillors.  He would ensure that Councillor Scarborough received the list.

·           Paragraph 3.29 of the report referred to the Housing White Paper inviting Councils to come forward with plans for additional housing delivery and make deals with government that might include flexibilities including in relation to Housing Revenue Account borrowing caps.  The Council supported this concept and were asking for a ‘bespoke housing deal’.  Mr Smith and Mr Walker were asked what this deal might look like and how would it be different from what other London boroughs were seeking.  Mr Smith replied that the Council’s response was currently being written up as the deadline for responses is 2 May 2017.  This would potentially relate more to Housing Revenue Account borrowing and housing policy changes rather than specific planning policy changes.  The Chairman made the point that this was would be a more relevant item for the Housing, Finance and Corporate Services Policy and Scrutiny Committee to examine.

·           Did the Community Infrastructure Levy ‘(CIL)’ provide a better deal for the Council in terms of receipts than Section 106?  Mr Smith replied that it was too early to say as CIL had only been introduced by the Council on 1 May 2016.  CIL receipts were being monitored.  CIL money was beginning to be received and would be robustly collected by the Council (the Council had significant experience of collecting CIL monies for the Mayor).  The Cabinet approved the governance arrangements for taking decisions on how CIL monies would be spent on 20^th February 2017.  Mr Walker expressed the view that the Council would bring in more money overall from CIL because Section 106 had largely only being applied to large development schemes.

Mr Smith stated that officers could potentially report back to the Committee from autumn 2017 after CIL had been in place for over a year and it could then be seen what impact it was having.  Officers would also be able to provide some feedback on the CIL review (the Government had recently published a report of an independent review of CIL which had proposed its replacement by a ‘local infrastructure tariff’ and the Government had said they would respond to this in the autumn budget).  Mr Smith added that officers would be undertaking work to lobby the Government and provide some input on the Council’s experience of CIL to date.             

5.5      ACTION: The following actions arose:

·           That planning officers write to the 2014 intake of Westminster Councillors to inform them of the planning training available (John Walker, Director of Planning).

·           That Councillor Astaire, Mr Smith and Mr Walker be requested to consider how often and in what format an update on progress regarding delivering housing, including affordable housing, through the planning process is provided to the Committee (also Madeleine Hale, Senior Cabinet Officer).

·           The WPA to be consulted as to whether it might be willing to consider contributing financially towards the Council maintaining a record of the development management (planning application) process (John Walker, Director of Planning ).

·           That it be checked that the Ward Councillors including Councillor Scarborough receive a list of applications which are due to be considered at future planning committee meetings (John Walker, Director of Planning).

5.6      RESOLVED:

1.     That the Committee note current planning developments and the planning process at WCC.

2.    That the priorities of the Cabinet Member for Planning and Public Realm be noted; and,

3.    That changes to the external environment that will impact on WCC be noted.