Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October be agreed as an accurate record.

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October be agreed as an accurate record.

Councillor Upex declared a non-prejudical interest as a member of CAMRA (the campaign for real ale) in relation to item three.

Councillor Curran declared a non-prejudical interest as a member of CAMRA (the campaign for real ale) in relation to item three.

Resolved: that the Committee’s views be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.

3.1    Emma Talbot (Head of Planning) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·         There had been a number of recent changes to planning policy at the national and regional level.

·         Officers in Lewisham had started the process of preparing the new overarching Lewisham local plan. The Plan would replace the existing adopted Planning Policy documents – Core Strategy (2011); Site Allocations Local Plan (2013); Development Management Local Plan (2014); and Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014).

·         Currently, the proposed timetable for the development of the new local plan was not being met. This was because of the work taking place on other planning documents and the wait for the Governmental guidance on the implementation of the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act. The earliest the new plan would be ready would be in 2018.

·         The Housing and Planning Act (2016) could have a significant impact on the planning regime and in particular on housing-led development.

·         The Mayor of London was in the process of issuing new guidance on his interpretation of the London Plan (2016).

·         It was likely that there would be changes to the provisions in the London Plan relating to affordable housing. The changes would also have an impact on the rules around density of new developments.

·         The draft supplementary planning guidance on viability indicated that new developments that committed to delivering 35 per cent affordable housing would not be required to produce a viability assessment.

·         The Chancellor's Autumn statement also introduced an element of uncertainty for planning going forward.

·         In terms of pubs policy in Lewisham, officers believed that Lewisham’s development planning document for pubs had been successful in promoting delivery of new pubs and protecting Lewisham's existing establishments.

·         There had been recent planning applications for A4 (drinking establishment) usage and nine pubs were now listed as assets of community value. Adding pubs to the register of community assets removed the permitted rights of owners to change the usage of buildings with pubs in them without applying for planning permission.

3.2    Emma Talbot (Head of Planning) and Janet Senior (Executive Director for Regeneration and Resources) responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         Lewisham's previous plans would be subsumed into the single new local plan.

·         Officers would set out the key stages for the development of the Lewisham local plan for councillors. The explanation of the stages would also highlight the points at which councillors could become involved in local consultation and engagement activities. The likely next stage of the development of the Plan would be in summer 2017.

·         It was likely there would also be opportunities for councillors to be involved in the consultation on the new London Plan in autumn of 2017.

·         Officers would also provide the Committee with information about the key stages for regional planning documents.

·         Consultation on the Mayor of London's supplementary planning guidance for viability had just started.

·         Planning managers kept a log of issues that arose at planning committees to identify recurring issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Resolved: that the Committee’s views be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.

4.1    Emma Talbot (Head of Planning) and Janet Senior (Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration) answered questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

·         Planning enforcement had not been integrated into the Council’s enforcement hub as part of the review of enforcement services across the Council.

·         The Council's enforcement activities and the work of the enforcement hub was regularly reviewed. It was recognised that there were some issues with the new hub in terms of the allocation of specialist and generic roles.

·         The review of enforcement activities had streamlined the exchange of information between teams inside and outside of the hub, as well as enabling greater levels of joint working.

·         An officer had been seconded between teams and joint work had taken place to deliver enforcement action against rogue landlords and brothels.

Councillor Curran temporarily left the room at 20:35 (for approximately five minutes) and Councillor Clarke assumed the Chair.

·         There were no proposals to include building control services in the enforcement hub.

4.2    In the Committee's discussions, the following key points were noted:

·         The Committee was concerned about the absence of an effective customer relations management system, which it thought might enable members of the public to speak to any Council officer and have their case transferred to the correct service.

·         The Committee highlighted the problems that some service users experienced when the concerns they wished to report fell between the planning enforcement, building control and other enforcement services.

·         Members reiterated their concerns about the IT system being used by the planning department, which it was felt was unstable and unsuitable for users in the Council and for members of the public (this was also the subject of a referral by the Committee to Mayor and Cabinet in September 2016).

·         Officers were asked to ensure any future changes to the building control service would be reviewed by the Committee.

Resolved: that the Committee’s views be referred to Mayor and Cabinet, as follows:

4.3    The Committee recommends that further work be carried out to develop a customer relations management system for the Council's enforcement activities. The Committee is concerned that there is not a clear and collaborative approach, between teams dealing with enforcement activities at the Council, for dealing with reports of activities from residents that may require enforcement action. The Committee believes that a single, universally accessible management system for officers would help to manage the flow of information and complaints as well as improving the reputation of the Council in dealing with residents' concerns.

4.4    The Committee believes that further clarity should be provided to residents for those cases in which building control and planning activities overlap. In particular, the Committee recommends that any letters issued to residents by either service include guidance about contacting the Council's other enforcement teams.

Resolved: that the Committee’s views be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.

5.1    Emma Talbot (Head of Planning) and Janet Senior (Executive Director of Resources and Regeneration) responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         Improvements had been made to the decision making process for the distribution of section 106 and CIL (community infrastructure levy) monies. The intention was to align the process with the Council’s capital programme priorities.

·         Work was also taking place with neighbourhood groups on the development of their neighbourhood plans. Local assemblies would also be asked for their input, in the interests of transparency and openness.

·         There would always be a need to make difficult decisions about spending but the current proposal, to create a single, annual process for the agreement of capital and S106/CIL funds for the following year would ensure the involvement of members and improve transparency with community.

·         It was intended that there would be more detail in the budget report about capital funding, which would make the Council’s plans for allocation of CIL funding more up-front and transparent.

·         There were representatives from different directorates on the regeneration board. However, Mayor and Cabinet took the ultimate decision on major spending proposals. There was delegated authority to the Head of Planning to allocate smaller amounts of funding.

·         There were legal tests applied to section 106 funding to ensure it was fair and related to the development providing the funding. CIL funding was not ring-fenced in the same way. There were less restrictions.

·         There was a commitment from the planning department to ensure that the Council spent all of the pots of money collected and to move projects along that were not meeting their principal aims.

·         Some London Boroughs defined their whole area as a ‘local area’ for the purposes of distributing CIL funding. In Lewisham, the allocation of spending was proposed to be localised to wards. However, the new system of allocating funding would allow for some joined up allocation of spending between wards, where there was agreement by stakeholders.

5.2    In the Committee's discussions, the following key points were noted:

·         The Committee was concerned that neighbourhood forums might not be representative of their local populations. Members asked whether a pro-forma constitution could be provided to groups planning to establish neighbourhood forums in order to ensure that they included councillors in their membership.

·         There were also concerns about whether local CIL spend should be decided by ward assemblies. The Committee indicated that it would review the issue again in future. 

·         There was concern about the sustainability of neighbourhood forums. Members noted the large sums of CIL funding that would be allocated to these groups. The Committee asked whether there were mechanisms in place to return funding to the Council in the case that a neighbourhood forum failed.

·         The Committee asked whether a process could be put in place to distribute funding from areas with high levels of funding to those with less.

·         The Committee wanted to better understand the decision making process in relation to the allocation of funding. It was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

See separate pack for annex 1

Resolved: that the report be noted.

Resolved: that the report be noted.

Resolved: that the information item be noted.

Resolved: that the information item be noted.

Resolved: that the changes to the agenda for the meeting on 24 January be agreed.

8.1    Timothy Andrew (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the report. The Committee agreed the following changes to the work programme:

·         An update on the animal welfare charter would be added to the agenda of the Committee’s January meeting, in order to consider the content before a decision is taken by Mayor and Cabinet.

·         The item on sustainable energy; the update on the modern roads review and the update on the high streets review would all be moved to the Committee’s meeting in March.

Resolved: that the changes to the agenda for the meeting on 24 January be agreed.

Resolved: that the Committee’s views under items three, four and five be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.

9.1       The Committee resolved to advise Mayor and Cabinet of the following:

·         The Committee commends the new Head of Planning. The Committee places on record its thanks for the work officers undertake to engage with elected members.

Resolved: that the Committee’s views under items three, four and five be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.