Agenda and minutes

It was confirmed that all items on the agenda would be considered in public.

Agreed as an accurate record.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement attended the meeting and gave Members a presentation on the purpose of the review.

The Committee was informed that the aim of the review was to consider whether there were any simple post development processes which could be introduced to analyse the successes or failures of major developments in the Borough. Also to look at how decision makers could try to learn lessons from any post development review processes which had been introduced.

Members were informed that Hillingdon processed around 4,000 planning application a year, of which there were around 100 major applications. The major applications approved had a huge impact on areas of the Borough. New housing developments affected lots of stakeholders.

Reference was made to the current mechanisms which were used by the Council to monitor developments. These included:

·         The Local Plan - This provided an opportunity for officers and public to give feedback regarding future developments. However, much of the feedback on planning issues of importance stemmed from views on developments which had already taken place. In addition the Local Plan was also developed over many years and did not represent a targeted qualitative review of whether the Borough's planning decisions were resulting in high quality development.

·         The Planning Department also undertook occasional customer feedback exercises which were targeted at applicants and agents. However, this feedback tended to result in customers focussing on whether they liked the service provided by a particular officer or the merits or otherwise of phone calls going through a customer contact centre. Therefore, the feedback given did not tend to provide meaningful responses on the quality of developments arising from the planning process.

·         There was individual site specific feedback from residents or Resident Associations on developments which were being built, but this almost entirely focussed on potential breaches of planning control, rather than constructive feedback on schemes once they had been built.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement acknowledged that Hillingdon did not have any processes put in place which monitored planning applications post Committee decision. For instance it would be useful to receive feedback on landscaping at developments.

The Committee was provided with examples of approaches taken by other local authorities in terms of post development review processes.

·           Receiving development advice from a Design Review Panel. Reference was made to Guildford Borough Council who received development advice on proposals for large scale new developments from a Design Review Panel. This was a Panel which was made up of professionals with expertise in architecture, urban design, landscape planning, building conservation, transport planning and sustainability. The advice offered was impartial and the intention was that a design review would improve the quality and functionality of development proposals, resolve potentially contentious design issues, anticipate problems and provide alternative solutions, ensure development proposals moved smoothly through the planning process and provided a way of testing design ideas.

·           The staging of an awards scheme such as held at the London Borough of Bromley. This could aim to promote good design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

The Committee was presented with a draft final report of the review into Hoarding.

Members were informed of suggested changes to the draft final report which included changing the recommendation on planning enforcement delegations so that it read:

"That the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation & Recycling and relevant officers consider what further measures can be undertaken by officers to tackle hoarding when the use of planning enforcement is a potential course of action."

In addition a new recommendation be added to read:

"That the Cabinet Member for Education & Children's Services and the Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health & Housing request officers to review whether the Vulnerable Persons Panel can be better integrated into established safeguarding arrangements, where children are potentially at risk by hoarding."

RESOLVED –

1. That approval be given to the suggested and updated recommendations of the review, and the finalisation of the report be delegated to the Chairman of the Committee, in consultation with Democratic Services.

The Chairman informed the Committee that he had received correspondence for the London Association of Funeral Directors who had expressed some concerns regarding the West London Coroner Service.

A briefing note was submitted which provided the Committee with the background to the issue and what the Council was doing to monitor and improve the situation.

RESOLVED –

1. That the briefing note be noted.

Noted.

Noted.