Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hanson, Hercock, Kennedy, Levy and Sharer.

2.1  There were no declarations of interest.

3.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.

3.2  The Hackney Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) provided monitoring information on spatial planning related activity for the financial years of 2015/16 and 2016/17 to inform and monitor policy development and performance. It highlighted the extent to which the policies set out in the Local Plan (the Core Strategy 2010, the Development Management Local Plan 2015, the Site Allocations Local Plan 2016, and adopted area action plans) had been achieved, using quantitative indicators. The AMR reports on two monitoring years covering from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. The AMR provided analysis of the effectiveness of policy and of the changing environment it was being applied to in the borough.

3.3  In response to a question regarding open space, it was explained that the information detailed within the report had been interpreted incorrectly and that there had been an actual gain of 0.183 hectares of open space and not a net loss of 1360sqm of publically accessible open space in Hackney 2015/17.

3.4  Reference was made to the level of active enterprise growth of 65% and it was explained that enterprise covered businesses with employees of 9 or more, with a turnover. The Government also publishes a full list.

3.5  Reference was made to the £24.5 million received by the Council from S106 legal agreements and it was explained that a full breakdown on how this was spent was detailed in section 8 of the report.

3.6  Discussion took place regarding environmental and sustainable data and the Planning Officer advised that the next AMR would report more on these factors and what others were doing. This would include new monitoring indicators going forward.

3.7  Reference was made to the town centres referred to in the report and it was explained that they could be split into specific areas and that there was a separate analysis for local centres detailed within the report.

3.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.

3.2  The Hackney Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) provided monitoring information on spatial planning related activity for the financial years of 2015/16 and 2016/17 to inform and monitor policy development and performance. It highlighted the extent to which the policies set out in the Local Plan (the Core Strategy 2010, the Development Management Local Plan 2015, the Site Allocations Local Plan 2016, and adopted area action plans) had been achieved, using quantitative indicators. The AMR reports on two monitoring years covering from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. The AMR provided analysis of the effectiveness of policy and of the changing environment it was being applied to in the borough.

3.3  In response to a question regarding open space, it was explained that the information detailed within the report had been interpreted incorrectly and that there had been an actual gain of 0.183 hectares of open space and not a net loss of 1360sqm of publically accessible open space in Hackney 2015/17.

3.4  Reference was made to the level of active enterprise growth of 65% and it was explained that enterprise covered businesses with employees of 9 or more, with a turnover. The Government also publishes a full list.

3.5  Reference was made to the £24.5 million received by the Council from S106 legal agreements and it was explained that a full breakdown on how this was spent was detailed in section 8 of the report.

3.6  Discussion took place regarding environmental and sustainable data and the Planning Officer advised that the next AMR would report more on these factors and what others were doing. This would include new monitoring indicators going forward.

3.7  Reference was made to the town centres referred to in the report and it was explained that they could be split into specific areas and that there was a separate analysis for local centres detailed within the report.

4.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. The full report which contained a more detailed analysis of appeal cases was outlined in Appendix 1.

4.2  The report highlighted the key findings from the analysis undertaken on planning appeal decisions and appeals on enforcement notices issued by the Council between September 2016 and November 2017. The information would help evaluate the effectiveness of the existing policy framework (the Core Strategy and Development Management Local Plan) in decision making and help inform both new and revised policies emerging in the new Local Plan (LP33) and emerging policies in the Area Action Plans for Stamford Hill and Shoreditch.

4.3  It was reported that a total of 138 Planning Appeals were determined in Hackney between September 2016 and November 2017. Of those, 91 (66%) were dismissed and 47 (34%) were upheld by the Planning Inspector. Those figures demonstrated that the Council was successful in defending almost two thirds of planning appeals during this period.

4.4  In response to a question to the Chair regarding appeals, it was explained that the Council was introducing more subjective policies and that the approach from the Planning Inspector was often less consistent than policies. With regard to appeals within the Stamford Hill area, the planning service was looking at how policy can be shaped and applied accordingly to the type of neighbourhood and conservation area.

4.5  In response to a question regarding the Bishopsgate Goods Yard application, it was explained that the GLA were still to determine this and that there was no right to appeal for applications determined by the GLA. Planning officers were due to meet with the GLA at the end of the month and had sent over the 13 reasons for refusal given by the Planning Sub-Committee for them to address. The GLA would then work through a programme of amendments and if these amendments were acceptable to the boroughs, a full public consultation would be undertaken and reported back to the relevant boroughs.

4.6  In response to a question regarding hoardings, it was explained that the Council had won some appeals and also lost some high profile ones. A breakdown of these types of appeals would be forwarded to the Chair.

4.7  The Planning Officer advised that the service would in the process of procuring a new system for enforcement cases and developing a new webpage.

4.8  The Chair thanked the officers for their presentations.