AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT
Meeting: Environment Committee
th Date: Tuesday 19 June 2001 Time: 7.30pm.
Place: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre Uxbridge
Committee Administrator: Susan Came Tel: 01895 250472 Press Enquiries: Roy Mills Tel: 01895 250534 Councillors on the Committee
Conservative Labour Liberal Democrat Mike Heywood (Chairman) John Oswell (Group Lead) Janet Campbell Jacqueline Griffith (Vice Graham Tomlin Chairman) David Horne Albert Kanjee Jim Jonas Sandra Jenkins Dave Allam Val Robins Advisory Members
Susan Sweeting Friends of the Earth Roger Taylor Hillingdon Ecology Forum Ian Cantley Ruislip Woods Management Committee Ian Grant Hillingdon Horticultural & Allotments Federation
Substitute Councillors
Graham Horn Lindsay Bliss Andrew Vernazza Alf Langley Dalip Chand
You are invited to attend the above meeting. The agenda is attached.
David Brough Head of Committee Services Smoking is not allowed in the Civic Centre including the Committee Rooms.
DESPATCH DATE: MONDAY 11TH JUNE 2001 ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 19TH JUNE 2001
AGENDA
PART 1 – PUBLIC
1. Apologies for absence, to report the presence of any substitute members at the Committee and approval of any changes in Sub-Committee memberships.
2. To receive the minutes of the meetings held on 20th March and 17th May 2001, copies attached.
3. To consider recommendations and resolutions from following Sub-Committees:- Transportation Sub-Committee of 24th May 2001, to follow. Parking Sub-Committee of 11th June 2001, to follow Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committees of 19.2.01, 19.2.01 and 29.3.01. Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committees of 15.2.01, 27.3.01 and 24.4.01. Ruislip/Northwood Planning Sub-Committees of 27.2.01, 3.4.01 and 8.5.01. (all Sub-Committee minutes are being circulated under separate cover).
4. Disclosure of ‘Any Other Business’ items to be considered in public and private
5. Confirmation that all items marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that any items marked Part 2 will be considered in private
6. To note that items to be notified at the meeting fall within the provisions of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and that any member of the Sub-Committee who is two or more months in arrears with their Council Tax or who has arrears of Community Charge must declare that fact and not vote on those items.
7. Report of the officers, copy attached
1 Petition – Flooding at Kings College Playing Fields, Ruislip Page 4 (Ruislip and Eastcote Wards) 2 Petition – Ruislip High Street Superloo (St Martins Ward) Page 6 3 Petition – Community Close, Ickenham – Recycling Facilities Page 8 (Ickenham Ward) 4 Petition – Condition of Kings Road and Queens Road, Page 12 Uxbridge (Cowley Ward) 5 Petition – Tree Management in Whitethorn Avenue, Yiewsley Page 14 and surrounding roads (Colham Ward) 6 Petition – New Years Green Lane, Harefield – Highway Page 16 Maintenance (Harefield Ward) 7 Revenue Budget 2001/2002 Page 17 8 The Chrysalis Programme – Progress on Projects and Page 24 Allocation of Unspent Resources for 2000/2001 9 Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy Page 42 10 Development Control – Service Update Page 44 11 Charging Fees for Town Planning Officers Time Working on Page 50 Section 106 Obligations and update on associated work 12 Audit Commission Report on Waste Services Page 57 13 Review of Hillingdon’s Unitary Development Plan – Issues Page 59 Consultation – Interim Progress report 14 Intelligence Report – Planning Consultation Documents and Page 74 Recent Planning Issues 15 Planning Appeals 1998-2001 Page 80 16 The Urban White Paper – The Next Steps Page 94 17 Planning Appeal at Hillingdon Hospital – Implications of Page 105 Decision for Affordable Housing Policy 18 Environmental Services Equal Opportunities Action Plan Page 126 19 Interim Local Implementation Plan 2002/2003 Page 142 20 Draft Interim Parking Strategy – Consultation Responses Page 145 21 Enhancement of the Parking Enforcement Service Page 160 22 Hillingdon’s Participation in the London Low Emissions Zone Page 163 Feasibility Study 23 Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy Page 166 24 Sale of Tobacco and other age restricted goods – Page 173 Programme of Enforcement Action 25 Initial Proposals for the London Mayor’s Spatial Development Page 175 Strategy 26 Sound Insulation Scheme to mitigate the effects of Railway Page 178 Noise from the Great Western Mainline (Botwell Ward) 27 Foot and Mouth Disease – Update Page 182 28 E-Services – Targets, Milestones and Resources Page 184 29 Environment Group Officer Delegations Page 187 30 Seminars for Committee Members Page 200
8. Any other business or urgent items in Part 1
PART 2 - PRIVATE
9. Report of the officers, continued
These reports are included in the Part 2 agenda as they contains exempt information as defined in the Local Government: (Access to Information) Act 1985, Schedule 1, Part 1. For report No. 31 the report contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular people. (paragraph 7 of the Schedule). For report number 32 the report contains information relating to any instructions to counsel and any opinion of counsel (whether or not in connection with any proceedings) and any advice received, information obtained or action to be taken in connection with- (a) any legal proceedings by or against the authority, or (b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority (whether, in either case, proceedings have been commenced or are in contemplation) (paragraph 12 of the Schedule).
31 Irrecoverable Sundry Debtors Page 201 32 Internal Audit Reports Page 204 33 Car Spares, 1, The Common, West Drayton Page 215
10. Any items transferred from Part 1
11. Any other business or urgent items in Part 2 PETITION – FLOODING AT KINGS COLLEGE PLAYING FIELDS, RUISLIP ITEM 1 (Ruislip and Eastcote Wards)
CONTACT OFFICER : David Bryant TELEPHONE : 01895 250316
SUMMARY
A petition signed by over 50 residents requesting action to prevent flood waters entering gardens surrounding Kings College Playing Fields, in St Martin’s Approach, Park Avenue, Pinn Way and Brook Drive has been received by the authority.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the committee:
1) Note the petition, residents’ concerns and action to-date.
2) Instructs officers to initiate discussions with the Environment Agency to seek a viable long term solution to the flooding and report back to a future meeting of this committee.
INFORMATION
1. The initial flooding of the fields occurred during the last few days of October and the first few days of November 2000, after 3-4 days of near constant heavy rainfall. The flooding was extensive as the river Pinn breached its banks on both sides. The flooding extended from St Martin’s Approach and Park Avenue on one side and Pinn Way and Brook Drive on the other. As the river level dropped much of the floodwater was left trapped on the open space. Under normal weather conditions the water would have been absorbed into the ground, however, as the water- table in the area is high, the flood water has remained on the open space in 4 main areas bordering and extending into the gardens of the following properties because they are of the same level or lower than the open space:
32 St Martin’s Approach and adjoining property 64 Park Avenue 12-16 Brook Drive and first house in Pinn Way
2. The areas known as Kings College Playing Fields and Pinn Fields are the natural flood plain of the River Pinn and many of the properties around the fields are actually within the flood plain.
3. The Environment Agency has advised that the current flood defences in the area are adequate under normal winter flood conditions. Unfortunately this winter, 2000-2001, has been the wettest since records began and although the local authority is the riparian owner of the land, it has not done anything to alter the land to cause the current problems which are the result of the record high rainfall.
4. Officers have made many site visits to the fields over the winter regarding this matter to see what could be done if at all possible to resolve the situation. To-date no resolve has been identified, as the area is designated a flood plain, officers have sought advice from the Environment agency, but have to date received no advice as to any possible solutions, but have Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 4 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS however been advised that we would not be permitted to alter the flood plain in any way without the Environment Agency agreeing the proposals and carrying out a full study to see how any proposed changes would affect land and property both up and down stream of Kings College.
5. As a gesture of good will the authority carried out pumping operations for a week and a half, to remove the trapped water from the area of at the St Martin’s approach end of the site, however these works were suspended as what gains were made in reducing the water level during the day-time were reversed overnight either by more rainfall or seepage from higher ground.
6. A site meeting was held on the 1st May between officers and Trevor Brawn of the Environment Agency who stated that the whole of the Kings college and Pinn Field were natural flood plains of the River Pinn. He provided a map which indicated the extent of the area of the flood plain and stated that little could be done to alter that fact but he would look at any proposals that were put forward.
7. During late April a person or persons unknown have dug trenches from the areas of water on the open space through the Banks of the river in an effort to remove the water from the open space. Although effective This act has put the area at a greater risk of flooding as it has lowered/breached the banks (flood defences). These actions have now placed the authority in a difficult position with the Environment Agency, as they are looking to take enforcement action against those persons responsible for the excavation of the ditches.
8. The authority are currently in the process of having the ditch system carrying water through the fields cleaned to ensure optimum flow, however although these works will ensure that water from the ditch line flows freely to the river during periods of normal rain fall and will not prevent flooding of the scale that we have experienced this year.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9. The Council is restricted in what it can do due to the controls exercised by the Environment Agency. Any plans for trying to address the problem will be subject to the necessary consents/permissions being granted by the Environment Agency.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
10. The recommendations to note concerns and to investigate further have no direct financial implications.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
File Reference 2952/DHL/17.5.01.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 5 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS PETITION - RUISLIP HIGH STREET SUPERLOO (St Martins Ward) ITEM 2
CONTACT OFFICER: Kathryn Sparks TELEPHONE: 01895 277394
SUMMARY
The Council has received a petition from Ruislip Residents Association signed by 51 residents concerning the Council decision to remove the Universal Superloo in Ruislip High Street. The petition notes that the decision was taken without consulting the residents of Ruislip and requests the Council not to remove the Superloo until adequate alternative facilities are provided in the vicinity of Ruislip High Street.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the petition be noted.
2. That as agreed at the Environment Committee in March 2001 a further report be submitted to October Committee identifying funding for removal of the Ruislip Superloo and considering alternative options and Borough-wide priorities for resiting.
INFORMATION
1. At a meeting of the full Council on 18th January 2001 members agreed to reject the retrospective planning application for the installation of a Universal Superloo situated in Ruislip. The Superloo application had previously been agreed on delegated authority and has been in position for several months.
2. Environment Committee in March 2001 considered the estimated costs of resiting the Superloo and was advised of 3 sites which already had planning permission. The location of existing operational Public Conveniences was noted together with the option of considering sites in areas of the Borough where there is currently no provision.
3. Members were also advised that the Best Value Review of Public Conveniences was taking place and would consider the provision of facilities across the Borough. This review is expected to be completed by the end of this financial year and will be reported back to the Committee.
4. Whilst the Council notes the desire of residents to ensure an adequate facility is available in Ruislip the Council must abide by the planning decision and once resources have been identified comply with the decision to remove the Ruislip Superloo.
Officers will however be requested to consider further options in Ruislip in delivering Borough priorities.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5. Legal comments are contained in the body of the report.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
6. The financial implications of removing the toilet will be included in the report to a future meeting of this committee. Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 6 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BACKGROUND PAPERS
Petition from Residents Association Report and Minute of 20.3.01 Environment Committee
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 7 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS COMMUNITY CLOSE RECYLING FACILITIES, ICKENHAM (Ickenham ITEM 3 Ward)
CONTACT OFFICER: Duncan Jones TELEPHONE: 01895 277507
SUMMARY
The Council has received a petition from the Ickenham Townswomen Guild concerning the appearance of the recycling facilities located in Community Close, Ickenham. The petition is asking the Council to consider demolishing the existing traditional style toilet block to allow the recycling bins to be re-organisation and screened to improve their aesthetic appearance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That members note the statutory basis for the provision of recycling services in the Borough and note the new servicing arrangements for the operation of the paper banks at Community Close.
2. That members note that there is no alternative site for the recycling facilities within the immediate vicinity of Community Close, that could be appropriately screened in line with intentions of the petition.
3. That members attention is drawn to the Property Comments in paragraphs 8 - 11 concerning the potential for alternative redevelopment of the public convenience building.
4. That members instruct officers to report back to the October Committee with costed plans for the demolition of the public convenience building and re-landscaping of the area shown on the map to accommodate the re-organisation and screening of the recycling facilities.
5. That members instruct officers to identify funding for the proposal identified in Recommendation 4, which should go ahead unless a realistic proposition for alternative redevelopment has been identified by October this year.
INFORMATION
Background
1. Initially recycling banks for glass and cans where installed at Community Close in the early 1990s in pursuit of the Borough’s aim to meet the 25% recycling target which had been set by Central Government. At the time all local authority recycling targets where non-statutory.
2 Since then additional banks have been added for, textiles, books and paper. Consequently this site, given it’s relative size, is now one of the best performing sites in the Borough in terms of the tonnage it generates for recycling. However, on occasion the site does become untidy as a result of a minority of users behaving inappropriately by leaving bags, boxes and other items of general household rubbish around the recycling banks. In addition the Environmental Services Group (ESG) has received a number of complaints concerning the range and appearance of the banks concerned.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 8 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3 In the summer of last year Central Government published it’s new National Waste Strategy – Waste Strategy 2000 – which for the first time has made local authority recycling targets mandatory. Consequently the provision of such facilities as well as other recycling initiatives is now a legal requirement. Hillingdon’s commitment to the new targets was recently illustrated by approval in March of the Borough’s draft Waste (Recycling) Strategy which has included a commitment to maintain the Borough’s network of recycling sites.
4 Currently the glass and can banks are emptied by the Council’s Waste Division. Contractors empty the book and textile banks with these services currently provided free of charge. The four paper banks, which have the biggest visual impact, are also emptied by contractors for which the Council pays a charge per tonne.
5 In March of this year officers from the Waste Division were able to successfully conclude negotiations with alternative paper bank contractors which has led to a reduction in overall costs whilst increasing the servicing frequencies at a number of sites including Community Close. The new contractors commenced operations in May. Once the new service has been given time to establish itself there will be scope to remove two of the paper banks from Community Close which should help to reduce the overall visual impact and complaints of untidiness.
6 In view of the information detailed above the Committee is asked to note that given the nature and operational characteristics of the vehicles that service the recycling banks there are no alternative sites where these could be realistically re-located and screened in line with the wishes of the petitioners.
7 As part of wider cost savings measures to address the Borough’s financial situation for 1999/00 members previously agreed to the closure of the Borough’s traditional style highway public conveniences. Subsequently a Universal Superloo has been sited at Community Close which now on average is used over 360 times per month (87% via coin, 13% via RADAR key).
PROPERTY COMMENTS
8 Even though the petition is requesting the demolition of the existing building the Committee should be mindful of the possible alternatives for this site and which of these may generate the best long term benefits to the Council.
9 The existing site (shown hatched black on plan G549 dated 18 May 2001) has already been reduced by the placement of the Superloo on the area cross hatched which may have limited the marketability because the area would have provided suitable off-road parking facilities for any proposed use of the building.
10 At this stage there has not been any formal consultation with Planning Officers regarding the appropriate planning potential but Property Officers recommend that there is potential for a limited range of uses which makes the site marketable and hence has some value. This would need to be examined in more detail if the Council were to declare the site surplus to requirements and have no alternative Service need. If the site was to be declared surplus to requirements by this Committee then the matter would be referred to the Finance and Economic Regeneration Sub Committee with any recommendation and that Sub Committee would decide on the method of disposal and allocation of any capital receipt. If the Council were minded to sell or lease the site then this would either be revenue or capital to the Council.
11 If this Committee decides to retain the site and change the use to a recycling facility then the existing building will need to be demolished, cleared and any ground works carried out at a cost to the Service. Clearly should the Committee concur with this approach an opportunity will be Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 9 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS lost to redevelop the public convenience along the lines detailed above. However, this would not prevent future potential development with respect to the land itself.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
12 The Council has a legal requirement to meet the statutory recycling and recovery targets which have been laid down by Central Government. Removal of such facilities as those in Community Close will make this harder to achieve in the long term. Authorities which fail to achieve the targets face the prospect of having outside organisation brought in by Central Government to run the relevant services.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
13 There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations to note the basis of providing recycling facilities, and to note that there is no alternative site available. If the Environment Committee formally declares the traditional public convenience building surplus to service requirements, responsibility for that building passes to the Finance and Economic Regeneration Sub Committee. The future of that building would then be a matter for that committee to consider, and decide.
14 Recommendation 4 seeks the committee’s approval to consider financial implications of demolishing the traditional toilet and relocating the recycling facility, at a future meeting, following further investigations.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
LB Hillingdon Draft Waste (Recycling) Strategy 2001 -2006 Waste Strategy 2000 Petition
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 10 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 11 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS PETITION – THE CONDITION OF KINGS ROAD AND QUEENS ROAD, ITEM 4 UXBRIDGE (Cowley Ward)
CONTACT OFFICER: Denis Chamberlin TELEPHONE: 01895 277542
SUMMARY
This report deals with a petition signed by 51 residents of Kings Road and Queens Road, Uxbridge, detailing a number of issues which, they believe, has let the area fall into a condition that does not befit a conservation area.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee notes the petition and the actions taken as a result.
INFORMATION
1 A petition was received with a letter from Mr A J Huckle of 13 Kings Road, Uxbridge dated 4 April, signed by 51 residents of Kings Road and Queens Road, Uxbridge. The petition reads:
“On behalf of local residents, who have added their details to this correspondence, I wish to make a formal complaint about the deteriorating condition of Kings and Queens Roads, which both fall within the Greenway conservation area.”
The petition specifies the following issues –
· Overhanging trees from private property & damaged and unsightly private fences · Vehicle parking, abandoned vehicles and on-going parking by local businesses · Damaged footways and kerbs · Weed growth in road edges in front of kerbs · The use of these roads as a “rat-run” · Graffiti on walls and fences
2 Following receipt of the petition, a site meeting and walkabout was carried out. Those in attendance were an officer from the Highways Services Division, Mr Huckle and other signatories to the petition. Detailed notes were taken from the meeting and a copy sent to Mr Huckle.
3 The issues raised in the petition and during the site meeting have been investigated and actioned as set out below -
Highway Maintenance & Management Repairs to the damaged kerbs and footpaths will be carried out as part of on-going routine maintenance during the current financial year.
The road edges have deteriorated and treatment now will avoid the need for more extensive repairs in the future. Capital funding is available this year and the work has been programmed for this summer.
Enforcement action will be taken to have the trees and shrubs trimmed back from overhanging the public highway.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 12 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Street Cleansing In the future, arrangements will be made to site parking restriction signs to allow thorough sweeping. The current schedule for sweeping residential roads is five-weekly but this will shortly be increased to three-weekly with the injection of extra resources following the Street Cleansing Best Value Review.
Traffic Consultation and design will be carried out later in the year for a Controlled Parking Zone for the Uxbridge South area. This will include all roads up to The Greenway.
Before deciding on measures to deter the flow of through traffic, a transportation study would need to be carried out to see where traffic is likely to transfer to. The control of speeding vehicles could be addressed through the introduction of traffic calming measures but this would affect the amount of on-street parking available, which would affect residents. These roads will be monitored and investigated for past accident histories to determine whether work can be justified at this stage.
Parking An Abandoned Vehicle Inspector and a Parking Enforcement Officer will be visiting the area and will report to DVLA the details of vehicles that do not have road tax. Officers will be also be visiting one evening to note HGV’s parking overnight.
Conservation Area Conservation Officers within the Environmental Services Group are currently preparing a report on these issues particularly with regard to parking and traffic calming within the designated Area. This report will be discussed at the next meeting of the Conservation Council which will be attended by Officers of the Highways Services Division. Members may consider that an Officers Working Group should be set up to co-ordinate all such works within the Boroughs 25 Conservation Areas in a more structured way.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
4 As the Highway Authority, the Council is responsible for the maintenance of the public highway. In the event that someone falls and injures themselves on a footpath, or if a vehicle suffers damage as a result of a defective road surface and it can be shown that it was due to the condition of the highway, the Council may be liable to pay compensation to any such injured person or vehicle owner. It could also be liable for damage to property if it can be shown it was due to the negligence of the Council.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
5 Highway repairs will be funded from existing revenue and capital budget allocations. Traffic studies will be funded from the parking revenue account.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Petition from residents
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 13 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS PETITION – REQUEST FOR TREE MANAGEMENT ITEM 5 IN WHITHORN AVENUE AND SURROUNDING ROADS (Colham Ward)
CONTACT OFFICER: Colin Chambers TELEPHONE: 01895 250 655
SUMMARY
To receive a petition from the Whitethorn Estate Residents Association and signed by 64 residents in respect of tree management in Whitethorn Avenue and surrounding roads.
RECOMMENDATION
That following a detailed survey of the trees in question, Officers instruct the Council’s term contractor to undertake tree management work in the following roads: Whitethorn Avenue, Colham Avenue, Cedar Avenue, Providence Road and Acacia Avenue.
INFORMATION
1. The roads in this area are tree lined, predominantly with London plane, also chestnut and lime.
2 The estate trees were pruned in winter 1993/4 but have now become very overgrown causing difficulties for residents of daylight exclusion, leaf litter and TV reception.
3 Throughout the late 90’s insufficient funding was available for tree management. In February 2000 some extra funding was identified and the trees in Maple Avenue were pruned.
4 In autumn 2000 the Trees & Woodlands Officer attended a residents meeting, explained the funding position and agreed to try and find alternative funding.
5 In March 2001 Officers made application to the Single Regeneration Bid Management Board for funding to undertake work to trees in this part of Yiewsley. The board considered the bid but rejected it on the grounds that works were of a maintenance nature and should be funded from revenue budgets.
6 In 2000/01 it was agreed that 52k would be added to the highway tree maintenance budget as a revenue growth item. As a result of the Section 114 placed on the authority this growth item was frozen. In 2001/02 the 52k growth sum was reinstated.
7 Members and Officers are mindful of the time that residents in this area have been waiting for tree management and the following chart shows a road by road breakdown of tree to be pruned and costs. The proposed expenditure represents 36% of the extra budget available:
Road Number of Style of Estimate of Trees to be Pruning Cost Pruned Whitethorn 19 (50% of Pollard 3630 Avenue trees)
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 14 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Colham Avenue 30 (planes Pollard 10,120 only) Acacia Avenue 5 Pollard 1560 Providence Road 4 Pollard 1020 Cedar Avenue 8 Pollard 2800
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
8 There are no legal implications
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
9 The work will be funded in 2001/02 from the additional funding allocated to this service area.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Petition
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 15 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS PETITION – NEW YEARS GREEN LANE, HAREFIELD – HIGHWAY ITEM 6 MAINTENANCE (Harefield Ward)
CONTACT OFFICER : Denis Chamberlain TELEPHONE : 01895 277542 SUMMARY
This report informs the Committee of a petition received about the poor standard of highway maintenance in New Years Green Lane, Harefield. Work in the road has since been completed.
RECOMMENDATION
That the information in the report be noted.
INFORMATION
1. A petition of 40 signatures was received in late February complaining about the poor condition of the road in New Years Green Lane, Harefield. The petition referred to large pot holes, broken verges and fly tipping. Access for residents and others using premises in the road was reported as being often obstructed by poor trench works, clods of mud and large lorries.
2. Capital resources from the Chrysalis programme of £23,000 had been agreed in December 2000 for carriageway and drainage improvements in New Years Green Lane. The petition coming in coincided with consultation with residents about the works which have since been completed. Residents, including the organiser of the petition, have been kept informed during the course of works and the organiser has indicated that they do not wish to now address the Committee. The report is therefore included on the agenda so that the Committee is aware of the situation.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
3. None
RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
4. The report and recommendation have no financial implications. The highways maintenance work was completed as part of the Environment Committee’s Chrysalis Programme of 2000/01 capital work.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Petition received 1 March 2001.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 16 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS REVENUE BUDGET 2001/02 ITEM 7
CONTACT OFFICERS: Ruth Willis 01895 250531 David Reynolds 01895 250994
SUMMARY
This report updates the committee of the matters that affect the revenue budget in the current year, since the Environment Committee agreed its budget in March 2001.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Environment Committee notes the proposals for spending the £0.983m of additional resources allocated to the Environment Committee.
2. The Environment Committee notes the substantial budget savings that need to be achieved in 2001/02.
INFORMATION
1 The Environment Committee meeting on 20 March 2001 took into account the decisions of Council at the Council Tax setting meeting earlier in March 2001, and agreed its revenue budget for 2001/02. The overall revenue budget for 2001/02 of £34,670,810 was noted and the Original Budget for individual services was agreed.
Budget Savings 2001/02
2 The overall revenue budget for the Environment Committee includes budget savings of £0.758m. The items making up this total were reported to this committee on 13 February 2001. It is clearly important that these savings are achieved in full if the Council financial policy is to be achieved of containing expenditure to within the limits set. In practice, this means that if overall expenditure is likely to exceed the total budget provision, after taking into account income, alternative savings must be implemented and achieved during 2001/02.
3 Members have been advised that there is still some work to be done in identifying other measures to cover the cost of some developments in 2001/02. Including the unallocated items within the Three Year Budget Strategy, these amount to £606k.
4 The achievement of all savings measures will need careful monitoring throughout the financial year, as part of regular budgetary control.
5 Members will also be aware that Council on 8 March 2001 agreed to include an unspecified budget savings target of £296k for “efficiency savings” in its overall budget. Policy Committee has not yet considered how this target will be achieved. It is possible that the Environment Committee will be required to implement a proportion of these savings, in addition to those already mentioned in this report. The Environment Committee will be advised accordingly.
Additional Resources for 2001/02: Growth
6 Council allocated an additional £0.983m to the Environment Committee to develop services in 2001/02. This sum included £250k for improving Highways services, £200k as a first tranche Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 17 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS towards the Waste & Recycling Strategy to meet government performance targets, and £50k for work on revising the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).
7 The Environment Committee on 20 March 2001 instructed the Corporate Director to report back to this (June) meeting with detailed proposals for using these funds. Further details are given below.
8 Waste Strategy £200k: This will mainly be spent on extending the kerbside recycling scheme. The number of households served will increase from 20,000 to 40,000. This is one of the most popular services provided to the community, and one which is greatly valued.
9 Highways activities £250k: This will include footway and carriageway repairs, and an increase in the inspection regime, as recommended by the recent Best Value Review of the service.
10 Abandoned Vehicle service £50k: This service has never had a proper budget. It is another service where there is increased demand from the community to improve the removal of abandoned vehicles from our open land and highways, following a significant increase in the number of abandoned vehicles.
11 Planning service: £333k has been allocated to acknowledge short-term budget decisions which has led to a tremendous strain on the planning services budget. Also, £50k has been allocated for work on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in 2001/02.
12 Parking £100k: It is expected that parking income in Uxbridge will reduce this year, due to the opening of the Chimes shopping development and the availability of more parking spaces.
‘Frozen Growth’ 2000/01
13 Members will recall that Council in March 2000 gave additional funds to the Environment Committee of £700k for the financial year 2000/01. However, these resources were ‘frozen’ shortly afterward when Council took action in response to the financial problems facing the authority, which culminated in a S114 notice being issued by the Borough Treasurer. In the event, the spending prohibition remained in force for all of that financial year.
14 For 2001/02, these resources will be used on a range of service developments. £250k will be spent on a whole variety of cleaning initiatives, including increased area based cleansing schedules, and new cleaning equipment to remove chewing gum.
15 A further £250k for highways repairs and works to replace and repair street trees. Money has also been made available to rebuild our Environmental Protection work, and food inspection programmes.
Best Value Accounting Code of Practice
16 The Council is required to apply the latest Code of Practice to its accounts for both 2000/01 and 2001/02. The code is intended to assist with inter authority comparisons for Best Value purposes by encouraging greater standardisation of reporting across all local authorities. The code requires changes to the definitions and grouping of certain services, and changes to the treatment of some costs.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 18 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 17 Work is continuing to implement the requirements of the code, and the budgets do not, as yet, reflect the new code of practice. Progress will be reported to a future meeting of the Environment Committee.
Revenue Budget 2001/02: Financial Monitoring Report
18 With only one complete month of the financial year completed at the time of writing, it is too early to forecast the Outturn for 2001/02. However, there is one issue, which will have significant financial implications for the Environment Committee’s budget. The budgets for the ex DSO’s and DLO’s have been set at a ‘break even’ level for internal customers, as required by ‘best practice’ for Best Value purposes. In previous years, under CCT, some DSO’s and DLO’s were budgeting for a ‘surplus’. Much of the work of the Engineering Consultancy Unit is related to, and funded by, the Council’s Capital Programme. Therefore, the Revenue Budget will bear more of the costs than was the case in previous years. The effect is currently estimated to be, roughly, £320k for 2001/02. This represents an unfunded ‘budget pressure’, for which compensating savings will be required.
Agency, Temporary Staff, Consultants, Overtime
19 Within the Environment Committee’s services is expenditure on appointing Agency ‘staff’, Temporary Staff, Consultants and Overtime paid to employees. Such expenditure is incurred where it may not be appropriate, or possible, to recruit regular staff to carry out certain work. Much of this expenditure is planned, and covered by budget provision. Members have requested reports on this expenditure, and the details are given at Appendix A.
LEGAL COMMENTS
20 Whilst the Group may seek to fix its Revenue Budget at this time it should be noted that events may arise during the course of the year which could require the budget to be altered. These could be legal reasons over which the Group has no control.
BOROUGH TREASURER’S COMMENTS
21 This is a financial report, prepared in consultation with the Borough Finance Officer. The financial, personnel and property implications are included throughout the report, where appropriate.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS reports and minutes of:- Environment Committee 20 March 2001, “Revenue Budget 2001/02”.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 19 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 20 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 21 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 22 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 23 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS THE CHRYSALIS PROGRAMME - PROGRESS ON PROJECTS AND ITEM 8 ALLOCATION OF UNSPENT RESOURCES FOR 2000/2001
CONTACT OFFICER Linda Arlidge TELEPHONE 01895 277830
SUMMARY
This report is being considered by the Environmental Improvements Panel on 14th June 2001. The Panel’s recommendations will be reported to the Committee for consideration.
This report reviews projects approved in 2000/2001, and seeks prioritisation of further projects for allocation of unspent funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that The Environmental Improvements Panel:
1. Notes the progress made in implementing projects. (See Appendix 1)
2. Agrees that where the final cost of a project exceeds the approved sum, the additional costs are met from the unallocated funds for 2000/2001.
3. Identifies to officers the way forward on the following projects:
8 and 25 – Footpath closures - Members may wish to consider leaving a budget of £5,000 in the project to enable the physical stopping up at the Harefield and Hayes locations. This would release at total of £21,000 for reallocation to alternative new schemes as listed in Appendix 2. (£6,167 Uxbridge Constituency plus £14,833 Hayes and Harlington Constituency).
22 and 13 – Neighbourhood recycling centres – Members may wish to consider reallocating the £9000 allocated for improvements to two recycling centres in the Hayes and Harlington Constituency which have since been closed.
31 – Eyesores register – Members may wish to consider reallocating the £15,000 allocated to set up the Eyesores register, which is being undertaken without recourse to Capital expenditure.
16 – Harmondsworth Lane Cycle Route – Members are asked to endorse the investigation and reporting back to the Panel of an alternative scheme, which has been requested by residents following consultation. £40,000 was allocated to the original scheme (Uxbridge Constituency) of which a balance of £37,250 remains following payment of consultation fees. The alternative scheme falls within the Hayes and Harlington Constituency.
4. Forward the Panels priority ranking for alternative schemes from Appendix 2 which will be used as the basis for allocation of unspent funds from 2000/2001, to the Environment Committee for approval.
5. That a visit be organised for Panel Members to selected project sites, to take Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 24 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS place during the early autumn.
INFORMATION
1. The Council’s vision is to regenerate and modernise Hillingdon and achieve a Borough that provides a safe and healthy environment – one where every member of the community can fulfil their potential.
2. The Chrysalis Programme will seek to support the achievement of this vision, by initiating a range of important environmental improvement projects across the borough. The Chrysalis programme was established following a decision of the Policy Committee on 15.2.00. The decision is set out below:
“That the £750,000 earmarked in the Capital Programme for Environmental Improvements be shared across the Borough and, in recognition of the importance of the environmental to the residents of Hillingdon, the allocation of this sum be subject to the following process:
Extensive consultation with local residents’ organisations and other relevant agencies An assessment of each proposal’s contribution to the achievement of the Council’s key objectives including community safety and the LA21 Agenda Detailed consideration of all proposals by a panel of 9 members who will be appointed by the Party Whips to cover all 3 Parliamentary Constituencies and who will submit their views to the Environment Committee for decision.”
3. On 20th June 2000, the Environment Committee agreed the criteria for funding from the £750,000 Capital Programme for Environmental Improvements to be as follows:
· The proposal/project will provide the Council with measurable progress on its Community Safety and/or Local Agenda 21 Programmes · The proposal is for an improvement, which is self funding in the future. The Council will not be able to support projects or proposals that place a long-term additional demand on the Revenue Budget. · Each proposal/project must be a sustainable development – i.e. based on LA21 principles · Each proposal/project must be able to demonstrate local area-based environmental improvement, which is the result of community/agency consultation · Each proposal/project must be able to demonstrate an improvement to the overall image of the Borough · Each proposal for funding must meet the Council’s criteria for Capital Expenditure, i.e. the expenditure must enhance the life of an asset, and the project or package of related schemes is more than £5,000
Information
4. The bulk of the information in this report is presented as Tables in Appendices 1 and 2.
5. Appendix 1 lists those projects to which funds were allocated in 2000/2001, together with progress and total spend to date. Tables 1 – 3 list schemes by Constituency, and Table 4 lists Boroughwide schemes.
6. Total spend includes the salary costs incurred in the last financial year in administering the programme (£6972) apportioned between active projects (£332 each).
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 25 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 7. Some costs have come over budget, but at the date of this report, final out turn figures are yet to be calculated. Approval is sought for these costs, plus projected overspends where available, to be met from within the unallocated finds for 2000/2001.
8. A calculation of unallocated funds available after overspends and projected overspends are taken into account is shown in Table 5. This amount is £39,549.
9. Where little progress has been made on a project, instructions are sought as to whether further feasibility work is carried out, or the project terminated. Notes on such individual projects are at paragraphs 12 to 19 below. Unspent funds arising become available for reallocation to alternative projects. The total amount arising from the recommendations at 3a) to c) above is £45,000.
10. Table 1 in Appendix 2 includes those Boroughwide schemes that were put forward to the previous panel meeting, but remain unconsidered. They are brought forward for prioritisation for the allocation of unspent funds from 2000/2001 in accordance with the request from the previous panel meeting.
11. Table 2 in Appendix 2 contains cost estimates for pond works around the Borough, and Table 3 other schemes not previously considered by the panel.
12. Recommendation 5 proposes that a visit be arranged during the early autumn so that Panel members can see for themselves some completed projects, and others where schemes are in progress.
Notes on Projects requiring further consideration
13. Projects 8 and 25 – Footpath closures: The three footpaths comprise: Sedley Grove to Hinkley Close, Harefield (Uxbridge Constituency); Airdrie Close to West Quay Drive, Yeading and Botwell Common Road to Lime Grove, Hayes (Hayes Constituency). Chrysalis funds previously allocated are £8,666 and £17,333 respectively.
14. Legal advice is currently being sought on the process of footpath closure, which can be reported to a future panel meeting. However, the Director of Finance advises that only the cost of physical measures can be met from Capital funds. Legal costs incurred in closure (for example, those generated by a Public Inquiry following any objection to the closure) are not an appropriate use of Chrysalis funds.
15. Experience gained from the ‘Gating Alleyways’ Project indicates that these physical measures can be achieved for around £2,500 per scheme (2 ends stopped up). Indeed, the footpath at Airdrie Close to West Quay Drive, Yeading has already had such physical measures undertaken on an unofficial basis by local residents. Accordingly, members may wish to consider leaving a budget of £5,000 in the project to enable the physical stopping at the Harefield and Hayes locations. This would release at total of £21,000 for reallocation to alternative schemes. (£6,167 Uxbridge Constituency plus £14,833 Hayes and Harlington Constituency).
16. Projects 22 and 13 – Neighbourhood Recycling Centres: Since funding was allocated, two centres have been closed. (Beck Theatre and Central Avenue, Hayes – both in Hayes Constituency.) Total funds previously allocated were £9000 for the two.
17. In addition, a petition has recently been received from Ickenham Townswomen’s Guild advocating the resiting of the Community Close Recycling Centre onto the adjacent site currently Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 26 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS occupied by closed public conveniences, following its’ demolition. The petition will be the subject of a report to the June Environment Committee. Chrysalis funds totalling £4,500 were previously allocated to this site (Uxbridge Constituency)
18. Project 16 – Harmondsworth Lane Cycle Route: Further consultation by Groundwork revealed that local residents were opposed to the scheme, which was to run from east to west between the M4 motorway and The Brambles, West Drayton. However, residents favour a scheme that runs from north to south across fields and the M4 from Harmondsworth Village to the estate. Officers are currently investigating the feasibility of this alternative scheme, which will form part of in the London Cycle Network.
19. £40,000 was allocated to the original scheme (Uxbridge Constituency) of which a balance of £37,250 remains following payment of consultation fees. The alternative scheme falls wholly within the Hayes and Harlington Constituency.
Project 31 – Eyesores register: The allocation of funds to maintain a register is no longer necessary as the Chrysalis Programme Manager is maintaining a list of eyesores brought to her attention by the public which may form the basis of improvement projects to be brought forward to future Panel meetings. £15,000 was allocated to this Boroughwide scheme.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
21. No legal comments.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
22. The figures within the report are based on the provisional capital Outturn. These may be subject to change as a result of the remaining work to ‘close’ the authority’s financial accounts for 2000/01.
23. Provision for overspends to date can be accommodated within the overall Chrysalis programme using part of the unallocated funds from 2000/2001. Members are being asked to indicate a priority order for new schemes that use unallocated funds from 2000/2001 pending the final out turn figures for schemes completed in the last financial year.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Environmental Improvement Panel Minutes - 18 July 2000, 26 September 2000, 23 November 2000, and 1 March 2001 Environment Committee Minutes – 15 December 1998, 26 July 2000, 12 December 2000, and 20 March 2001 Full Council Meeting Minutes – 18 January 2001
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 27 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS APPENDIX 1 PROJECT PROGRESS 2000/2001
Table 1 - Ruislip and Northwood constituency
Project Project Name Funds Allocated Funds spent Difference Comments No. £ £ £
1. Demolition of 40,000 0 -40,000 Buildings still awaiting disconnection of public services by Statutory Undertakers. Obtain conveniences tenders for demolition Aug 01. Demolition to (4) start October 2001. Completion anticipated by Feb 02 2. Rickmansworth 33,000 35,129 +2,129 Carriageway and drainage works completed. Road, Northwood 3. New Years 23,000 24,298 +1,298 Carriageway and drainage works completed. Green Lane, Harefield 4. Park Lodge 12,000 7,252 -4,748 Drainage improvements completed. Fence to Farm, Harefield be installed when ground conditions/ Foot and mouth allow. Completion anticipated Summer 01. 5. Ruislip Lido, 17,500 332 -17,168 Millennium Trail to be installed when ground Ruislip conditions/ Foot and mouth allow. Completion anticipated by July 01. 6. Ruislip Pond, 20,000 17,170 -2,830 Pond cleared. Awaits replanting and re- Ruislip instatement of water inlet. Completion anticipated Summer 01
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 28 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Project Project Name Funds Allocated Funds spent Difference Comments No. £ £ £ 7. Neighbourhood 9,000 83 -8,917 Anti-flytipping measures under investigation. recycling centres (2) (Green Lane, Northwood and Abbotsbury Gardens, Eastcote) 8.* Closure of 8,333 0 -8,333 Legal advice being sought on process of footpath (Sedley footpath closure, to be reported to a future Grove, panel meeting. However, Director of Finance Harefield) advises that legal costs in closure are not appropriate use of Capital funds – only physical measures which are estimated to cost £2,500 9. Wiltshire lane 36,600 0 -36,600 Design drawings nearing completion. Tenders to be returned June 01. Start on site July 01. Completion anticipated March 02.
Total 199,433 84,264 Plus net +3,427 overspend on completed projects Total 202,860
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 29 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Table 2 - Uxbridge Constituency
Project Project Name Funds Allocated Funds spent Difference Comments No. £ £ £ 10. Wordsworth 30,000 332 -29,668 Garages demolished (using Housing Funds Way, West £32,115). Landscaping works to commence Drayton June 01. Planting to commence Autumn 01. Completion anticipated Jan 02 11. Ickenham Pond 8,000 8,000 0 Pond renovations complete. 12. Grosvenor 19,000 332 -18,668 Works due to commence once ground Crescent, conditions allow. Completion anticipated by Hillingdon Sept 01. 13.* Neighbourhood 13,500 125 -13,375 Community Close, Ickenham - subject of report Recycling to June Environment Committee for relocation Centres (3) onto site currently occupied by Public (Community Conveniences Close, Grand Union PH, Cowley – anti fly-tipping Ickenham; measures under investigation Grand Union Western Ave., Hillingdon - on hold pending PH, Cowley; outcome of planning application for surgery on Western Ave, site Hillingdon) 14. Street Lighting 42,000 26,593 -15407 Schemes completed, awaiting final costs from Improvements Southern Electric and removal of old columns. (Kingston Ave; Kingston Avenue footpath to Horton Road was Chestnut Ave; not implemented. (Estimated cost to be Fairfield Rd, advised) Yiewsley) +5,500 Further £5,500 expenditure expected
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 30 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Project Project Name Funds Allocated Funds spent Difference Comments No. £ £ £ 15. Subway 19,000 19,000 0 Project nearing completion. Murals to be Improvements completed by end June 01. No further costs anticipated 16.* Harmondsworth 40,000 2,750 -37,250 Consultation by project manager Groundwork Road Cycle indicated that residents are opposed to Scheme, West scheme. However, consultation has revealed Drayton support for alternative scheme running south from M4.
Total 171,500 57,132 Plus net -9907 underspend on completed projects Total 161,593
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 31 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Table 3 – Hayes and Harlington Constituency
Project Project Name Funds Allocated Funds spent Difference Comments No. £ £ £ 17. Brookside 15,000 332 -14,668 Groundwork submitting bid to London waterside Waterway partnership by end June 01 for improvements, £50,000. Site clearance preparation works to Yeading commence summer 01. Project to be completed by Mar 02. 18. Sam Philps, 10,000 10,332 +332 Project completed. Hayes 19. Barnhill Youth 6,300 2,507 -3,793 Shelter purchased. Installation anticipated by Shelter July 01 subject to improvement in ground Scheme, conditions. Yeading 20. Norman Leddy 10,000 332 -9,668 Work on access improvements nearing Gardens, Hayes completion. Invoice for £8116 awaited. 21. Central Ave, 65,000 26,891 -38,109 First phase (Uxbridge Rd to Hesa Rd) Hayes completed. Second phase (Hesa Rd to Longmead Rd) anticipated completion March 2002 22.* Neighbourhood 13,500 125 -13,375 Beck Theatre and Central Ave recycling Recycling centres now closed. Height restriction Centres (3) measures to prevent commercial vehicles (Pump Lane; accessing Pump Lane site being investigated. Central Ave; Anticipated completion August 01. and Beck Theatre, Hayes)
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 32 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Project Project Name Funds Allocated Funds spent Difference Comments No. £ £ £ 23. Street lighting 28,000 25,630 -2370 Cleave Avenue complete. This scheme was improvements extended in response to resident’s requests. (Cleave Ave. Coleridge way awaiting connections from and Coleridge Southern Electric. Further expenditure of Way, Hayes) +24,000 £24,000 expected.
24. Subway 19,200 19,234 +34 Project nearing completion. Murals to be improvements completed by end June 01. No further costs anticipated 25.* Closure of 17,667 0 -17,667 Legal advice being sought on process of footpaths footpath closure, to be reported to a future (Airdrie Close, panel meeting. However, Director of Finance Yeading and advises that legal costs in closure are not Botwell appropriate use of Capital funds – only Common Rd, physical measures which are estimated to cost Hayes) £2,500 per location. The footpath at Airdrie Close, Yeading has already had such physical measures undertaken on an unofficial basis by residents.
Total 184,667 85,383 Plus net +21996 overspend on completed projects Total 206,663
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 33 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Table 4 – Boroughwide schemes
Project Project Name Funds Allocated Funds spent Difference Comments No. £ £ £ 26. Modern street 55,000 53,859 -1,141 Project completed. cleaning equipment 27. Street furniture 10,000 12,590 +2590 Project completed. improvements 28. Gating 20,000 808 -19,182 Publicity pack developed and circulated. alleyways Residents groups showing good interest. Anticipated implementation of first schemes within next 2 months. 29. Borough 7,500 12,327 +4,827 Project completed. Boundary Signs 30. Community tree 25,000 25,560 +560 Project completed. planting scheme 31.* Eyesores 15,000 0 -15,000 Register being maintained without recourse to register funding. Director of Finance advises not appropriate use of capital funds.
Total 132,500 105,144 Plus net +6836 overspend on completed projects Total 139,336
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 34 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Table 5 – Allocation by Constituency and calculation of unallocated funds for 2000/2001
Constituency Funds allocated 2000/2001 Estimated potential spend 2000/2001
Ruislip/Northwood 199,433 197,027 Plus one third allocation of Boroughwide schemes 46,445 (139,336/3) Plus net overspend on completed projects 3,427
Total 249,305
Uxbridge 171,500 124,343 Plus one third allocation of Boroughwide schemes 46,445 (139,336/3) Plus net underspend on completed projects -9907
Total 208,038
Hayes and Harlington 184,667 181,069 Plus one third allocation of Boroughwide schemes 46,445 (139,336/3) Plus net overspend on completed projects 21,996 253,108
Boroughwide schemes 124,336
Total Funds available 2000/2001 750,000 Less total funds allocated, including overspends 710,451
Amount currently available for additional projects 39,549 Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 35 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS APPENDIX 2
Table 1 – Boroughwide projects not considered at previous meeting
Name of Scheme Estimated Value of Contribution required BW 02 Hillingdon Doorstep Walks proposed by Corporate £7,000 Director for Education, Youth and Leisure This project aims to encourage increased physical activity within the borough, particularly amongst those who are not presently active, by increasing the attractiveness, safety and accessibility of walking as a physical activity.
This project involves a number of Council departments working with partners from health and the voluntary sector to develop a range of urban walks in the borough. Leaflets and brochures are to be produced and “walk guides” from the community will be trained.
In total the project will cost £12,000 and an estimate of £7,000 is needed for the Capital Works (i.e. the upgrading of the walks). The remaining costs will be raised from other sources, such as Health Improvement funds. BW 04 Litter bin replacement proposed by the Corporate £10,000 Director for Environmental Services This project aims to continue the work already started (and partially funded by Chrysalis in 2000/01) to replace worn, older style or damaged litterbins on the Highway. The scheme also proposes the installation of additional littler bins in key locations.
This proposal arose from staff consultation during the Best Value Review of Street Cleansing
There is no alternative or additional funding proposed for this scheme BW 05 Community Tree Planting Scheme proposed by £13,000 Corporate Director for Environmental Services In the financial year 2000/01 £25,000 was allocated from the Chrysalis programme funds for a community tree- planting scheme. This has proved to be very popular with Residents and Tenants Associations who have been asked for requests for tree planting sites under the scheme.
It is proposed to repeat this scheme on a smaller scale in the financial year 2001/02 to help in satisfying the demand that the scheme has created.
There are no additional or alternative sources of funds available for such a scheme Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 36 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BW 07 Improvements to the Schools Crossing Patrol Sites £15,000 proposed by the Corporate Director for Environmental Services The Schools Crossing Patrols Service was transferred to the Council from the Metropolitan Police in April 2000.
There are 31 patrol sites, and a programme of improvements is needed to improve their safety. The proposal is to affix signs and flashing amber lights to the sites, which will improve the visibility of these important safe highway crossing patrols. It is estimated that £15,000 will fund improvements to around one third of the sites.
No additional or alternative sources of funding have been identified for this project.
BW 08 Parks Patrol Scheme – capital start up costs £10,000 originally proposed by the Corporate Director for Education Youth and Leisure, and now proposed by the Corporate Director for Environmental Services. The Council will be introducing a Parks Patrol service in the new financial year. There will be a need for capital expenditure to start this project up.
It is estimated that £10,000 is needed to improve the former depot building at Fassnidge Park for use as a base/ office.
No additional or alternative sources of funding have been identified for this project.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 37 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Table 2 – Ponds in need of restoration
Name of Scheme Estimated Value of Contribution required RN16 Hill End, Hill End Road, Harefield and Harefield £20,000 (cost Common, Breakspear Rd North, Harefield (Harefield saving if undertaken Ward) as one contract Hill End - Pre 1866. Significant management input required together) (including mechanical excavation and pollarding of willows) for restoration. Harefield Common – Minor management needed.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project
Ruislip/Northwood Constituency RN17 Two ponds at Highgrove LNR )(Eastcote Ward) £20,000 One is an old stock pond, the other ornamental. In public open space but not included in the Grounds Maintenance specification. Significant management (including tree work and mechanical excavation) required at both. Must be phased to provide continual habitat for Great Crested Newt.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project
Ruislip/Northwood Constituency UX17 Pole Hill, Hillingdon (Hillingdon North Ward) £10,000 In need of significant management (including mechanical excavation) for restoration.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project
Uxbridge Constituency HH05 Willow Tree Pond, Yeading (Yeading Ward) £13,200 In need of significant management – to include the coppicing of trees, replacement of a bridge, conversion of ex-grazing land into a Community Forest, involving the whole community in planting and nurturing the trees as they grow to maturity.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project.
Hayes and Harlington Constituency
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 38 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Table 3 – Projects not previously considered by the panel Name of Scheme Estimated Value of Contribution required BW09 – Community Safety Partnership fund put forward £20,000 by the Corporate Director for Environmental Services (Boroughwide Scheme) The two Community Safety Partnership Teams were set up with the aim of reducing crime and the fear of crime in the community. The partnership teams cover the north and south of the Borough and involve Council officers and local Police, linking with local community liaison groups.
Many of the community safety concerns that come to notice can be addressed by implementing straightforward environmental improvement measures. To date it has often proved difficult to achieve this, as no alternative resources are available.
It is proposed that £10,000 Chrysalis funds are made available for each of the two area partnership teams.
The fund would be used to develop and implement local environmental schemes identified by the forum.
S17 of the Crime and Disorder Act requires local authorities to take account of crime and disorder reduction requirements in all their work.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project.
RN18 – Field End Road, Eastcote – Renovation of shrub £5,500 beds put forward by the Eastcote Residents Association (Eastcote Ward) The shrub beds separate the service roads from the main Field End Road at the shopping area starting at Eastcote library, and ending at the traffic lights.
Over the years, shrubs have died and numerous gaps have appeared where people have trodden down the soil to cross the road.
A quotation for £5,493.80 has been obtained from the Councils’ Grounds maintenance contractor for supplying and planting 130 new shrubs.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 39 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UX18 – Greenways project – Bridge construction at Three £30 – 50,000 Valleys Water site, Yiewsley to complete North to South link put forward by Groundwork Thames Valley (West Drayton Ward) The Greenways project involves the creation of two new cycle, equestrian and pedestrian routes from Central Uxbridge to Langley, Slough and Colnbrook. It will provide safe, mainly off-road links to through the Colne Valley. The first phase along the Grand Union Canal in Uxbridge was completed using London Waterways partnership funding (87k).
The remaining section in Hillingdon Borough will include a new 20m bridge over the lake at the Three Valleys Site, near the Lizards, Yiewsley. Groundwork Thames Valley is seeking £30- 50,000 to complete the route.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project.
UX19 – Community safety footpath lighting improvements £10,000 in Harefield Road, Uxbridge put forward by the Corporate Director for Environmental Services (Uxbridge North Ward) Three stretches of linking footpath are currently unlit, and have been causing local residents concern. The Crime Prevention Officers of the Metropolitan Police recommend that lighting be installed throughout the path.
The footpaths run from Lancaster Road to Harefield Road, Harefield Road to Pages Lane and Pages Lane to Braybourne Close.
It is estimated that the scheme can be completed for £10,000.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project.
UX20 - Community safety footpath lighting improvements £20,000 in Rockingham Park, Uxbridge put forward by the Corporate Director for Environmental Services and the Waterloo Road Residents Association. (Uxbridge South Ward) The car park and footpath along the Frays river linking New Windsor Street and Austin Waye provides a pleasant traffic free north to south pedestrian route. However, lighting in the car park is currently insufficient to deter crime, and the pedestrian route is unlit.
It is proposed to improve and replace the lighting in the car park, and install lighting along the footpath along the river. Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 40 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS It is estimated this can be achieved for £20,000.
No alternative or additional sources of funding have been identified for the project.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 41 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UXBRIDGE/COWLEY ECONOMIC SUPPORT STRATEGY ITEM 9
CONTACT OFFICER : Jales Tippell TEL: 01895 250402
SUMMARY
This report summarises progress on the Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy and recommends that Members agree to the employment of an Uxbridge/Cowley Project Officer for a further period of two years in order to continue the work of this regeneration project.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members agree to the appointment of a Project Officer within Planning and Transportation Services for a further period of two years, to be funded by an existing s106 Agreement, in order to implement the Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy.
INFORMATION
1. At the Economic Regeneration and SRB Sub-Committee meeting in December 1998 it was agreed that an Uxbridge/Cowley Project Officer be appointed within Planning and Transportation Services, funded by a Section 106 Agreement and for a period of two years. The funds from this Section 106 Agreement (and subsequent ones in the area) are used not only to finance the Project Officer post, but also to undertake research in the area, develop an Economic Support Strategy, and to identify and initiate economic and environmental improvement schemes within the Uxbridge/Cowley corridor. Since that time progress and actions of the Project Officer have been regularly reported to Environment and its sub committees as shown in the list of accompanying reports.
2. Since taking up this post in October 1999 the Uxbridge/Cowley Project Officer has, in conjunction with the corporate working group, progressed the Economic Support Strategy by: · Preparing the Planning Brief for the Uxbridge Industrial Business Area (adopted in April 2001 and with widespread community ,MP and Member support); · Completing surveys including a company survey and analysis report; · Carrying out extensive consultations and forging strong links with major local landowners, local businesses and neighbouring residents groups; · Contributing to estate management issues (Uxbridge Industrial Business Area – congestion, access, bad neighbour uses, road conditions); · Briefing the London Development Partnership/London Government Association; · Liasing with Greater London Enterprises on small business accommodation; · Identifying the need for small industrial units; · Appraising major development proposals; · Assisting in the negotiation of Section 106 agreements to seek additional funding for the project and · Promoting and assisting in canalside environmental improvements and new cycle routes.
3. The Economic Support Strategy was finalised in August 2000 and a Planning Brief for the Uxbridge Industrial and Business Area (IBA) was adopted in April 2001. These documents contain a series of actions and improvement programmes which now need to be worked up in more detail and implemented. In particular further work is required on: · Setting up a Company Forum; Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 42 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · Ensuring preparation and implementation of a programme of environmental improvements particularly to business premises and streetscapes in the area; · Addressing the on and off street parking concerns of the Uxbridge IBA; · Securing small industrial units in the area in conjunction with property colleagues; and · Identifying additional sources of funding for the project.
4. The Uxbridge/Cowley Initiative has gained considerable momentum and support over the past two years and developed a high profile as a major regeneration project within the Borough and West London. The Project is now at an important stage when actions within the area’s Economic Support Strategy must be implemented to maintain the project’s success. The post of Uxbridge/Cowley Project Officer has now become vacant. Your officers recommend that a portion of the Uxbridge/Cowley s106 budget (which has been augmented by subsequent contributions over the past 18 months) be used to employ a replacement Project Officer initially for a further period of two years, in order to implement the Economic Support Strategy and continue this key area of work.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5. The funding is drawn from financial contributions under an existing legal agreement for the undertaking of transport, environmental and economic initiatives in the Uxbridge/Cowley area. As the Uxbridge/Cowley Project Officer will be recording time spent on this area of work and it will be charged to the relevant fund and the Council is in a position to demonstrate the appropriate use of those funds, the proposal is lawful.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
6. The report seeks agreement to appoint a Project Officer, when the current post-holder leaves, subject to the availability of funding from a S106 agreement for a second term of two years. Providing the developer agrees to this use of funds, and there are no other legal restraints, no additional employment costs should fall upon the Environment Committee’s revenue budget.
BACKGROUND REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS
Report to Economic Regeneration/SRB Sub-Committee 3 December 1998 Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy Report to Environment Committee 20 June 2000 Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy – Progress Report Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy (August 2000) Report to Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee 30 November 2000 Uxbridge Industrial and Business Area Draft Planning Brief for Public Consultation Report to Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee 24 April 2001 Uxbridge Industrial and Business Area Planning Brief Uxbridge Industrial and Business Area Planning Brief (Adopted April 2001)
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 43 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL- SERVICE UPDATE ITEM 10
CONTACT OFFICERS: Jean Palmer Phil Poplett TELEPHONE: 01895 277980 SUMMARY
This report sets out the current position on the turn around times for planning applications in the Borough
It also sets out timescales for improvements, short term, and also long term proposals for bringing this service first to an acceptable standard, and then to a first rate one.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Members note the current position and service provided by the development control teams.
2. Members endorse the courses of action set out in paragraph 13
3. Member receive an update report in October and December so that they can review the situation and consider any resource requirements, which may come to light.
BACKGROUND
Re-organisation
1. The Planning and Transportation Division is currently undergoing restructuring. A new Service Head came into post in March 2001. Currently, only one of the three management posts is filled that of the Policy and Strategy Manager. The other two posts are currently being advertised, and it is unlikely that people recruited into these posts will be in place until mid September. The management structure once these posts are recruited to is set out in Appendix A.
2. There are also proposals covering the modernising the way the service works with call centre proposals, document imaging, and systems review which will bring in service enhancement.
3. In mid May, as part of the above restructuring the posts of Head of Building Control, and the three Area Planning Managers left Hillingdon, (the Head of Development Control (DC) had also left at Christmas).
Staff resources
4. Currently staff resources in development control are low and have been for some time:
CURRENT POSITION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL STAFF
Hayes & Harlington Team 3 Planners
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 44 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Ruislip & Northwood 2 Planners
Uxbridge/West Drayton 3 Planners (plus one agency 50% of time)
Householder Team 2½ Planners (plus one agency staff)
5. At present there are 6 vacant posts in DC, which it is hoped to recruit to in the near future.
Current position Statistics and performance
6. Statistics on the DC service are currently not easily available (with the exception of the householder team which has exemplary management information available) this is in part due to the problems encountered in getting the Development Control “Ocella” computerised system “up and running”, and in part to management failure to bring in alternative systems. This has led to Hillingdon’s inability over some considerable time to submit Development Control performance figures to the DETR. It is hoped by the next quarter to start to provide this key performance management information again.
7. Figures are currently being prepared for the DETR, and will be handed to Members prior to committee.
Numbers of Applications
8. The number of applications received in the Town Planning Service has been steadily increasing. During the year 1999 to 2000, some 2,972 applications were received and the Service had 17 Development Control Officers.. The year 2000-2001 the department received 3,092 (4% increase) cases, 258 per month and at the start of the year had 14½ professional officers.
9. For 2001/2002, in March and April, 533 applications (year end forecast at this rate could be 3,198 which would be a 7½% increase since 1999/2000 in applications), have been received and there are now only 10½ professional officers, Appendix B shows backlog (11 May) and cases being dealt with per team.
Customer Focus
10. Clearly the increase in work, and decrease in staff resources, coupled with outdated management practices and procedures has led to a backlog of cases, and letter enquiries, and an overall poor service to customers. Applicants have a right to appeal against the Councils failure to give a decision within an 8-week period from the acceptance of the application as ‘complete’ in the planning department. As applications are stuck in a backlog, more and more of these type of appeals are being received, creating further work on already pressurised officers.
11. Equally, because of the delay in dealing with applications, more and more phone calls are made by customers anxious to know what is happening to their case, further reducing the time available to deal with the applications.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 45 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 12. Development in Hillingdon is also currently booming, and the department has a continual stream of large high profile applications which require significant amounts of officer time to deal with in the most efficient and effective way.
Way Forward
13. There is much to do, and there are two strands of measures to deal with these issues, and bring the service up to standards, which the Borough can be proud of and which customers deserve, these are short term and longer term.
· Short term (within 3/4 months) Remove answerphones (which were used until 1pm) to ensure a better customer access Already implemented
· Act up existing DC staff to provide day to day management for DC until new management structure can be introduced. Already implemented
· The Head of Planning & Transportation to meet weekly with the temporary acting DC managers, to ensure early management decisions are made on new cases, and consistency of approach in decision making. Already being implemented
· The exemplary data and management systems currently used in the householder team to be rolled out across DC. Currently being implemented.
· A review of administrative functions to look for synergies in process, and faster processing of cases, and more assistance to professional staff. Scoping report produced
· A series of procedure notes to be produced to ensure best practice, and more effective handling of cases, and improved customer focus Ongoing
· Review seating of DC and admin staff to make phone answering and admin support across the service easier and more effective. By September 2001
· Log in all correspondence and ensure it is answered in a timely fashion using a monitoring system. By September 2001
· Through staff participation, agree structure for three new teams, and set up process for allocating staff to new teams. By September 2001
· Attempt to clear backlog of cases through use of overtime and additional short term agency staff (if appropriate) Limited overtime in place with management systems to review its effectiveness
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 46 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · Start a series of Continuing Professional Development Seminars for officers to both boost morale and provide expertise for their job. 2 CPD sessions set up for June and July - ongoing programme to be drawn up
Long term (4months – 2 years)
· Move to new structure which will allow major cases to be handled by dedicated focused team, and smaller cases to be handled as a business also with Building Control On start of new managers September/October
· New teams will allow a radical rethink of all procedures including longer reception hours, more pre application meetings, setting up of customer panels and other key quality indicators. October
Best Value
14. Little progress on the milestones set out in the Best Value Review have been made to date, since December, the service has been struggling, and indeed failing to just “do the basic” turn around planning applications, however, as Members will note, some progress is now being made on moving towards a Best Value Service, and once the basics are under control, greater focus will be put to delivering the Best Value improvements in the Action Plan.
RESOURCES
15. It has not been possible to report to Members to this Committee whether the staff resources (when fully staffed) will be adequate for the number of applications being received (compared with other London Boroughs) however, this information will be available for the next update report in October.
16. Boroughs like Camden have turned round failing DC services into Best Value/Chartermark services, and the task has taken 3/4 years to do, but it has been done.
COMMENTS OF THE BOROUGH TREASURER
17. The recommendations have no financial implications.
LEGAL COMMENTS
18. No legal comments.
CONCLUSION
19. The task ahead is immense, and there will be no quick remedy, and whilst the service will improve between now and September, it is considered only after the new management team for Planning and Transportation has been up and running for a year that a significant change will be seen.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Nil
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 47 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 48 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 49 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS CHARGING FEES FOR TOWN PLANNING OFFICERS TIME WORKING ITEM 11 ON S106 OBLIGATIONS AND UPDATE ON ASSOCIATED MATTERS
CONTACT OFFICER: Jean Palmer TELEPHONE: 01895 277980
SUMMARY
This report proposes that fees are charged against Town Planning officers time when working on certain aspects of S106 obligations. The context to this report is various pieces of Central Government guidance, legal requirements and the 1999 District Auditors report on the management of planning obligations. This report also provides Members with an update on progress in developing the management of S106 obligations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Members agree to the charging of fees as set out in Appendix A, Option 2.
2. That Members note the updates set out in para 7.
INFORMATION
1. At the time of the District Auditors report, the Planning and Transportation Service was managing more than £4m worth of agreements. Much good practice had been developed, for example the range of policies supported by Supplementary Planning Guidance. The District Auditor recommended an action plan and this was agreed by Members.
2. One of the remaining issues to tackle is the charging of officer’s time spent on some of the work relating to these obligations. This was Recommendation 7 of the District Auditors report.
Appropriateness of Charging of Fees 3. Corporate Legal Services have provided advice on charging for officer time on S106 Agreements. This advice was based on Leading Counsels opinion. Broadly, that advice stated that costs may be charged for:-
· Firstly, time spent on the content and preparation of the actual Section 106 Agreement (These would be fees and would be sought by Planning as well as legal). This would be post committee decision and pre signing the agreement.
· Secondly, practical work in connection with the provision of the benefit (i.e., post comment and the project management stage). This would normally be work required to bring into effect the practical consequences of the benefit.
· Thirdly to cover the costs of the administration, monitoring and accounting mechanisms of the overall programme of s106 agreements.
4. The qualifications to the above are:-
· No pre-application work may be charged for, and work, which is covered by the application fee, cannot be charged for.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 50 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · A time recording system will also need to be in place and used as an audit trail to validate any charge to S016 and S278 funds.
How to Charge? 5. The Head of Planning & Transportation has instructed all officers within the division working on S106 agreements to record their time when working on agreements with Committee approval from 1st April 2001.
What to Charge? 6. A consultant was commissioned to consider an appropriate level of fee for town planners.
7. Two options were provided (see Appendix A). Officers suggest that option two is the most appropriate as it more closely reflects Local Government costs, and would be easier to justify if challenged.
S106 Update
8. Below is a quick update on other S106 matters which may be of interest to Members:-
· S106 Officer Following the decision of the Environment Committee on the 12 December 2000, an officer has been successfully recruited to a new post, and will start work in early June.
· S106 Database A key priority is for this S106 Officer to have this database up and running as soon as possible.
· S106 Training Seminars for officers are to be held in July by a leading expert on this key work area, both for Development Control planners and policy planners so this the Revised Unitary Development Plan policies can be as robust as possible in securing planning gain for the Borough. Officers have also requested time for a Members Seminar on this issue.
· Past 106 Cases Management and monitoring of an initial tranche of cases is being reviewed and any lessons learnt will be the subject of further reporting to Members.
· Corporate S016 Meetings These have been reintroduced, scheduled for the year ahead and chaired by Head of Planning and Transportation.
· S106 – Strategy for the Council S106- Guidance notes for Officers S106- Supplementary planning guidance These will form key components of the new S106 officers’ work programme, and will be presented to Members during the forthcoming months.
Information for Members The full list of agreements has been updated and this will be sent to all Environment Committee members shortly.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 51 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS FINANCIAL COMMENTS
9. Members should be aware that in charging for officer time spent on S106 agreements the Council must ensure that such charges are lawful. Accurate records of time spent must be kept. The proposals contained in the body of the report comply with such requirements. The provision of training is an important issue, as it will assist officers in carrying out their duties in an efficient manner.
10. The cost of employees working on S106 and 278 Planning agreements falls upon the Environment Committee’s revenue budget. If fees can be properly charged for appropriate work done by Council staff, the resulting income will benefit the Committee’s revenue budget. The income will clearly depend on the volume of work done, as well as the level of fees charged and this may vary from year to year. Annual income is difficult to estimate, but it could be £25k approximately a year.
LEGAL COMMENTS
11. Members should be aware that in charging for officer time spent on S106 agreements, the Council must ensure that such charges are lawful. Accurate records of time spent must be kept. The proposals contained in the body of the report comply with such requirements. The provision of training is an important issue as it will assist officers in carrying out their duties in an efficient manner.
CONCLUSION
12. The appropriate procedures, checks and scrutinies for the proper management of S106 obligations are now being put in place.
13. As part of the restructuring of the Planning and Transportation Division a new Major Developments Team will be set up and the post of the manager of that team is currently out to advertisement.
14. It is envisaged that this Team will have a responsibility to produce a post S106 Implementation Plan for each S016 obligation so that clear roles responsibilities and timescales will be set out for its effective implementation and spend.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
District Auditors report May99 Reports to Environment Committee 6/99 and 12/00
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 52 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 53 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 54 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 55 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 56 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS AUDIT COMMISSION REPORT ON WASTE SERVICES ITEM 12
CONTACT OFFICER: Kathryn Sparks TELEPHONE: 01895 - 277394
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide feed back on the Audit Commissions Best Value inspection of Waste Services.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members note the report.
INFORMATION
Background.
1 Waste Services undertook a Best Value review during the year 1999/2000, covering domestic and trade refuse collection, recycling, special collections and civic amenity sites. This was one year ahead of the implementation of Best Value legislation, which came into force in April 2000.
2 The Audit Commission inspection began on 23rd October 2000 and lasted for a period of ten days. During that time the inspectors separately interviewed, a focus group of recently consulted residents, a group of four elected Members, the Corporate Director, the service manager, supervisors, and a group of operatives. They also carried out “reality checks”, visiting random refuse and recycling rounds, trade refuse customers, the special collection service and civic amenity sites.
3 Prior to the inspection the authority was asked to provide a package of over 20 substantial documents covering the Council’s corporate objectives, its approach to Best Value, and operational information.
Audit Commission Findings.
4 Waste Services was assessed as a ‘good’ service in that user satisfaction is in the main good and increasing. The refuse service was considered generally very good with few missed collections due to efficient route management. There are some weaknesses concerning lid and bin replacement.
The Audit Commission reported waste services as cost effective showing some signs of innovation in green waste and trade refuse recycling. In addition, recycling was considered to be good.
5 The findings concluded that the service was ‘unlikely’ to improve in the short term. This related to the need for additional funding to be made available. The Audit Commission concluded that the “in total we consider that the services are relatively low cost and well managed”.
Audit Commission recommendations.
· Improve the layout and design of civic amenity sites to make recycling easier for residents;
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 57 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · improve the signage at the recycling banks including supplying contact numbers for users to call; · improve levels of cleanliness at the civic amenity sites and the recycling banks; · integrate waste minimisation and recycling strategy into a detailed action plan and show how new national recycling targets will be met; · implement proposed expansion of the trade refuse and green waste recycling; · develop more local performance indicators including better capturing and analysis of customer complaints; · set targets to achieve top quartile performance; · prepare a detailed action plan on the integration of best value into the service contract and re- tendering; and · integrate best value into the ongoing management of the service.
“The Council has already indicated that it will be addressing these”.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5 None.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
6 The recommendation has no financial implications.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Audit Commission Best Value Inspection Waste Services – March 2001.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 58 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS REVIEW OF HILLINGDON UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: ITEM 13 ISSUES CONSULTATION: INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT
CONTACT OFFICER : Fung-Yee Cheung TEL: 01895 250623
SUMMARY
At the Environment Committee meeting on the 20th March 2001, Members resolved to approve the Unitary Development Plan [UDP] Review Issues Consultation Document and associated consultation programme. Officers were also requested to bring a report on the responses to the consultation for the Committee’s consideration. As the consultation period ended on the 15th June, this report is only interim. It outlines the feedback from the consultation process and initial responses [appendix 2] to date.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
1. notes the progress of the UDP Review issues consultation.
2. requests officers to bring a detailed report on the responses to the consultation to the October meeting of this Committee or equivalent.
INFORMATION
Consultation Programme 1. At the 20th March 2001 Environment Committee meeting members approved the UDP Review Issues document for consultation purposes and agreed the timetable and methodology for the public consultation. The consultation period runs for eight weeks starting 20th April 2001 and ending the 15th June 2001. During this period, the consultation programme has focussed on the following: a) Workshops - Three area workshops – Ruislip, Uxbridge and Hayes Four topic workshops – Housing & the Built Environment/ Local Economy and Town Centres/ Air Quality & Transportation/ Hillingdon Ecology Forum. Workshop for all Members. Ethnic minority organisations Health organisations Young Peoples workshop: Linked to West London Alliance Young Peoples Day
In addition Housing Services are organising a workshop for Housing Committee members [with Planning &Transportation staff assisting] b) Seminars - Older Persons Assembly Hillingdon’s Youth Council Hillingdon’s Annual Housing Conference Environmental Services Group staff
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 59 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS c) Publications - Issues document highlighting the main issues Summary leaflet to promote the consultation and the workshops taking place Advertisements in the Gazette, Leader and the Informer for two weeks Article in the Spring edition of Hillingdon People Detailed sets of Issues papers [on request] Issues document on the Council’s website d) Distribution - Leaflets/posters and Issues documents at all Borough libraries and the Hayes One Stop Shop Leaflets at seven major supermarkets around the borough Environmental Services Reception Council’s Website Over 800 organisations including businesses, interest groups, community groups, consultants and local residents associations.
Appendix 1 to the report lists those organisations invited to the workshops, but there was a general invitation to any member of the community to attend, as long as the accommodation was able to take the additional numbers. No difficulties have been experienced with this approach.
Progression of the Consultation 2. Workshops were kept informal with a brief introduction to the UDP and an open discussion of the issues relating to either geographical area and topic area. At the time of writing this report, of the workshops that have taken place, the response has demonstrated that the workshops have been well received. Appendix 2 lists some of the variety of comments/issues raised at the workshops including interest expressed in the process.
3. Although the consultation period ends on the 15th June, two events have had to be rescheduled for shortly after these are: a) Young Person’s day intended to take place during UN environment week on the 7th June, but due the General Election, Young People’s day will now be on the morning of the 26th June, to be held at the Civic Centre. The aims and objectives of the event is to get in touch with young peoples needs and perceptions of the built environment and to give them a better understanding of the basics of the development process from the various sections that contribute to the development process. Two representatives from years 7 or 8 [11-12 years] have therefore been invited from each of the schools in the borough to take part in the planning workshop. b) Housing Services workshop for Housing Committee members. At the Housing Committee on 15th March members resolved to hold a workshop for Housing Committee members on the UDP Review. The workshop is being arranged for late June 2001.
Next Stage 4. After the consultation the responses will be analysed and a report submitted to the October meeting of the Environment Committee for consideration.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
No legal comments.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 60 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations to note progress and to report again have no financial implications.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
LB Hillingdon Environment Committee 20th June 2000; 20th March 2001
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 61 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Appendix 1
AIR QUALITY & TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
Contact Name Organisation Mr. K Bragg Northolt Airfield Action Group Federation of Airport Noise Groups [FANG] Mr. Dermot Cox Heathrow Association for Control of Aircraft Noise [HACAN] Dr Hugh Somerville - Head of British Airways Environment Andy Wadham - Planning & Heathrow Airport LTD Environment Dept Mr. Thorpe Thorpes Michael Stewart First London Phil Shafe Metroline Mark McGuiness First Uxbridge Buses Stephen Laws London United Busways Mat Larkin First Ealing Buses Matt Larkin First London Bus Lines Nick Knox Arriva the Shires & Essex Bill Hiron Tellings - Golden Miller Adrian Hill Brunel Bus Station Bill Gritt West London Buses & Coach Centre Chris Day Red Rose Travel Sherri Brown Airlinks Richard Attwell Sovereign LTD Martin Ash Magpie Travel Mike Palmer Owners Drivers Society Adrian McCarthy Royal Automobile Club Richard Massett Licensed Taxi Drivers Association John Gutteridge Freight Transport Association John Dawson Automobile Association Bob Bushnell London Ambulance Service NHS Trust John Wardle London Underground - Piccadilly Line Claudette Pollock London Underground - Metropolitan Line Geoff Nunn London Underground Central Line Ms Pravina Pantchal Heathrow Express John Chiltern Thames Trains Steward Yateman Chiltern Railways
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 62 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS HOUSING & BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP
Contact Name Organisation David Routledge Uxbridge Conservation Panel Mr. D J Duncan Northwood Conservation Panel Pat Whiteman Harefield Conservation Panel Clive Pigram Ruislip Conservation Panel Sheila Liberty Eastcote Conservation Panel Michael Hurst Canal Locks Conservation Panel Len Tanner Ickenham Conservation Panel Dale Venn, RIBA Hillingdon Conservation Panel Ken Pearce The Greenway Conservation Panel Alan Boyd Harmondsworth Conservation Panel Mrs J. Goodwin West Drayton Conservation Panel Planning & Liaison Manager - Environment Agency James Burstow Giles Atkinson House Builders Federation Mr. Surabjeet Sidhu Hillingdon Race Equality Council Martin Young NAHT Representative Brian Houghton HASH Representative Jenny McDonald Representative Primary Forum Frances King Special Schools Representative Darrell Mercer Acton Housing Association Lynee Weston Airways Housing Association Anu Vedi Paddington Churches Housing Association Richard McCarthy Peabody Housing Trust Paul Doe Shepherds Bush Housing Association Keith Holloway Thames Valley Housing Association Sean Brickley Warden Housing Association Anna Bowman West Hampstead Housing Association Amanda Williams Spelthorne Housing Association Rod Cahill Ealing Family Housing Association Carol Radmore Family Housing Association Sarah Humphreys The Guinness Trust Nick Wood Network Housing Association Peter Flinn Northcote Housing Association David Cowans North British Housing Association Tam Vu Notting Hill Home Ownership John Gregory Notting Hill Housing Trust Cilve Coley Inquilab Housing Association Dave Harmer John Grooms Housing Association Tony Shoults/Frances Wilson Metropolitan Housing Trust Sue Buckingham-Hatfield Brunel University Steve Hedley Yeldall Homeless Project Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 63 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Peter Hicks Maple Road Employment Services Paul Yaude Project 2041 Julie Markwell Cranford's Women Project Marion Lewis Mellow Lane School Carol Coventry HAVS Lorraine Collins Hillingdon Adult Education Centre Neil Sharman Uxbridge College Mike Crane Community Accord Mrs Cindy Tsang Hillingdon Chinese School Mr. S Papacosta Hillingdon Greek School Tim Sullivan St Pancras & Humanist Housing Assoc. Jeffery Cackett Shaftesbury Housing Association Pam Sedgwick Housing Corporation Ms D Sherlock Sanctury Housing Assoc. Steve Joyce Southwark & London Diocesan HA Bob Hind Paradigm Group Mrs Wendy Masters Frays Housing Assoc. John Barker Moat Housing Society John Belcher Anchor Housing Association Ron Dunning Research & Development Manager Ron Bartholomew Co-op Home Services
LOCAL ECONOMY & TOWN CENTRE WORKSHOP
Contact Name Organisation Director Marks & Spencer Director Radenton LTD Director The Pavilions Tim Stockton Xerox N Adnett Blygold LTD Director Health & Safety Executive Director Three Valleys Water PLC Director London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority Mr. Bridgeland Hillingdon Chamber of Trade, Commerce & Industry Mike Langan Hillingdon Chamber of Commerce Mrs Manjit Bansal Eastcote Chamber of Commerce Mrs A Reid Northwood & Pinner Chamber of Trade Tony Ungar Ruislip Chamber of Commerce Mr. N Green Uxbridge & West Drayton Chamber of Trade & Commerce Mr. M Wiseman Uxbridge Retailers Association Andrew Vander Meersch Stockley Park Consortium Peter Blackburn Nestles UK LTD Victor Farley West London TEC Planning & Property Division Glaxo Smith-Kline UK LTD Brian Hodge Hayes Regeneration Office Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 64 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Mike Stevens The Chimes Gill Cummings-Bell Hospitality Forum, Uxbridge College
LOCAL GROUP [SOUTH] WORKSHOP
Contact Name Organisation Mr. Bradley Berwick Avenue Residents Association Mr. E. Mannings Bourne Avenue Residents Environment Association Peter Clark Brook Green Residents Association Mr. L Love Cranford Cross Residents Association Mrs E Bodger Glenwood Residents Association Mr. P J E Nicholas Grange Park Residents Association Ms Carly Jones Harlington Village Association Mrs C McGowan Hayes Town Centre Residents Association Mr. C Smith Hobart Road Residents Association Mr. J W Dunford Home Farm Residents Association Mr. L D Gomez Lake View Estate Residents Association Mr. I R Shadbolt Nestles Avenue Action Group Mr. J Rutter North Hayes Residents Association Mr. J Worth Willow Tree Lane Area Residents Association Mr. P Hollingum Willows Residents Association Mr. C Barry Yeading Residents Association Mr. D Brown Bovis Homes Residents Association Mrs M Wakley Croyde Avenue Residents Association Mrs J Johnson Glenwood Residents Association Alan Webb Crane Ward Residents & Tenants Association Mr. I J Greenhill Cleave & Savoy Residents Association Mr. D Collins Waye Avenue Residents Association Mrs Jean Agius Botwell Tenants & Residents Association Mr. D Venn Hillingdon Village Residents Association Mrs B A B Sobey Harmondsworth & Sipson Residents Association Mr. B Goodman West Drayton Amenity Association Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 65 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Mrs M Stacey West Drayton Residents Association Mrs R Pearce Longford Residents Association Lynda Lee Wise Lane Estate Residents Association Miss P Goodsell 197 Waye Avenue Mr. C Holdaway West Drayton Garden City Residents Association Mr. P Feltham Holloway Lane Residents Co. LTD Andy Gibbs West Yiewsley Residents Association Brian Wing Yiewsley & West Drayton Town Centre Action Plan Joyce Mansfield Hillingdon Council Tenants Federation Allan Bannister Avondale Tenants & Residents Association Mrs Phillips Portland Estate Residents Association Frank Allen Lake Farm Area Tenants & Residents Association Shaun Holliday Bell Farm & Stcokley Residents Association Lynne Griffiths The Glebe Estate Residents Association Paul Carney Whitethorne Estate Residents Association Beryl Knight Philpots Farm Residents Association Brookgreen Residents Association Neil Sharman Harlington Community School Tony Pilkington Bell Farm Christian Services Mrs. J Agius Townfield Association Mrs. J Agius Townfield Community Association
LOCAL GROUP [CENTRAL] WORKSHOP
Contact Name Organisation Mr. T E Hill Eastcote Residents Association The secretary The Forresters [Eastcote Ltd] Mr. S W Lee Gatehill Residents Association Mr. C J Reece The Glen Leaseholders Association Mr. I D Paterson Hill Road Residents Association Mr. M Thatcher Northwood Hills Residents Association Mrs. A Goodman Northwood Residents Association Miss G Cooper Rodwell Close Residents Association Mr. R B Williams Ruislip Residents Association
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 66 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Mr. D Ticehurst South Ruislip Residents Association Pauline Crawley Harefield Tenants & Residents Association Janet Monks Victoria Road Tenants & Residents Association Mr. Platt Eastcote Residents Association Mr. Alan G Prue Northwood Residents Association
ETHNIC WORKSHOP
Contact Name Organisation Raj Chopra EKTA Asian women's centre Robin Paras Rama Fiji Association Mr. P M Makwana Gujarati Society Hayes Sikh Society Mr. S M Mohan Help Drop in Centre Paramjit Kaur Sethi Hillingdon Asian Women's Communication Service Neenu Shihn Hillingdon Asian Women's Group Paula Scott Hillingdon Churches Refugee Care A Dukseyeh Hillingdon Somali Assoc Mrs. Hashi Hillingdon Somali Women's Group Mr. P Radia Indian Cultural Services Mr. G Sharma Indian Friends Association Mrs. June Samuel League of Jewish Women [Northwood] Mrs. B Majithia Ruislip Asian Elders Group Mrs. Fawzia Adams Refugee Aid and Development Raghbir Singh Sikh Welfare Assoc. Hillingdon Ibrahim Hassan Somali Education and Cultural society Mr. O R Siddiqui Hillingdon Muslim Council Mr. Ishaq Islamic Education Society Ramgharia Sikh Association Mrs Sheryl Green Ruislip Synagogue Mr. Joseph Jack African Caribbean Society Mrs Ladhar Asian Cultural and Welfare Committee Mr. G Hanstead Assoc. of Jewish Ex- Servicemen & Women Mr. F Haque Bangladeshi Association
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 67 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Appendix 2
The points raised are those of the representatives at each workshop. Most other issues raised relating to other services have not been included and will be taken to the relevant sections. Reported here are workshops undertaken to date.
Topic Workshop – Housing & the Built Environment
1. There is a need for more local authority power to enforce higher standards of design and architecture
2. Who is to be the arbiter of good quality design?
3. Need for increased understanding of local vernacular amongst developers although site constraints are equally important as local vernacular
4. Need to consider interior design standards as densities increase e.g. internal floorspace standards
5. Changes and pressures on existing stock in Conservation Areas [Ca’s] is key problem
6. Need more prescriptive guidance for each CA and tighter CA policies
7. However, CA’s can be dynamic and need to be allowed to change.
8. Hillingdon’s housing policies will take a steer from Mayor’s SDS.
9. LBH Housing will be seeking a reduction in the affordable housing policy threshold to 10-15% and for 50% of all units to be provided as affordable housing.
10. Mismatch of housing stock and population profile is a problem but difficult to intervene, particularly within the private sector.
11. If too much affordable housing is sought, land values for housing will fall and the land may be sold for commercial or other uses instead.
12. Need for a clear key worker definition
13. In some boroughs, developers are providing affordable housing at no cost (Tower Hamlets)
14. Do we need to move away from density figures? It may be more appropriate to relate the amount of housing to the surrounding area and pattern of development
15. It is also acknowledged that densities give a degree of certainty to developers.
16. Accessibility issues cut across all housing types and needs to be reviewed.
Topic Workshop - Air Quality & Transportation
1. Principle concern from British Airways Authority [BAA] is that not all air quality/traffic problems should be blamed on Heathrow – as is implied in the Issues paper. 85% of traffic going past Heathrow is not related to the Airport.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 68 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2. BAA wants to be involved in Air Quality Action Plans but wish to be treated equally.
3. BAA consider that restricting parking at airport, as considered in the Issues paper, will double the number of airport trips because of the “Kiss and Fly” factor – where people are dropped off and picked up.
4. Green Travel Plans are a positive and worthwhile tool but LBH should have its own GTP as well to set a good example.
5. More information is needed as to where people are commuting from/to each day for work if we are to implement UDP transport policies effectively.
6. Cycle network needs to be upgraded. Segregated cycle ways – there is enough space to be reallocated on wide footways.
7. (Night-time) freight bans don’t solve problems – they merely move the problem to peak hours where there are more Heavy Goods Vehicles [HGVs] on the road.
8. Freight Transport Association [FTA] advocates setting up freight quality partnerships.
9. FTA are actively encouraging Transport for London to reconsider the night time lorry ban.
10. FTA is advising members to use cleaner vehicles and fuels – and is succeeding in this.
Topic Meeting – Local Economy & Town Centres
1. North Hillingdon local centre may be under threat from proposals of a major supermarket chain being located at the Master Brewer site
2. Parking near shops should be limited to 2hours to prevent commuter and staff car parking, to allow shoppers to use the car parking facilities to access shops
3. Need to strengthen policies used to refuse applications to prevent minor amendments being made and re submission of proposal.
4. Ickenham is at the moment is considered a healthy local centre
5. There are too many takeaways and restaurants that have implications on parking and congestion. There needs to be a balance of these uses.
6. The definition of A3 use class [restaurants, takeaways, pubs etc] is too broad.
7. Leisure uses should be allowed to use as an attraction to existing businesses and in balance with existing uses.
8. Improved vitality and increase in activity in the town centres during the day and at night will improve safety through natural surveillance
9. The development of convenience stores and petrol stations should be allowed in isolated areas where there are none or limited services, but not near local centres where there is a likely impact.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 69 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 10. There should be more council services and adult education training centres in local and town centres to improve accessibility
11. Car parking charges should reflect the needs of shoppers as well as preventing commuter car parking in town centres
12. Losing Industrial Business Areas [IBA] would mean loss of potential land for employment.
13. There needs to be a variety of employment, that are not low paid/low skilled jobs and provide career development for local people.
14. Need to promote and enhance IBA’s and retain areas that are easily accessible for employment intensive uses.
15. There needs to be a greater emphasis on residential provision on the Bourne Avenue site.
Topic Workshop – Ecology, Hillingdon Ecology Forum
1. Need more clarification on the definition of Biodiversity
2. Accessibility to these Biodiversity areas is important
3. Biodiversity not just about open space but the built environment e.g. bats
4. No good having robust ecological policies if there is no enforcement to back those policies up
5. Concern over sites which may have their status downgraded
6. Ecology/Biodiversity should not just be a stand alone UDP section but should be cross- referenced in other chapters (housing, employment etc)
7. Resource implications for the Council. Need Borough ecologist(s) if we are to be able to assess ecological assessments that accompany planning applications
8. Will the Biodiversity Action Plan identify key individual species?
Topic Workshop – Health
1. How will the UDP relate to the Community Plan?
2. Need specific UDP section on health and quality of life; well-being is a best value indicator.
3. Will local authority Partners get first refusal on new sites identified?
4. Where is the Council’s transport strategy? This must be made a priority.
5. Public transport improvements are a priority – particularly North-South links – if health and air quality problems are to be addressed.
6. Community and health workers may still need their own on and off-street parking.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 70 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 7. Health authority estates portfolio is rapidly changing – has land use/UDP implications e.g. plastic and burns unit relocating from Mount Vernon, changing role of Harefield etc
8. Some services need to be relocated to make them more accessible.
Local Area Workshop [Central] – St Margaret’s Church, Uxbridge
1. Concern from residents over extent to which they and other parties will be notified of changes the Plan throughout the course of the review, particularly with regard to any Green Belt changes.
2. There are some anomalies in the Green Belt which need to be addressed e.g. Hillingdon House Farm.
3. What is the future of farms in the Green Belt?
4. Also concerns about future development on the site of Harefield Hospital, if it was redeveloped. 5. Generally support road pricing as a way of controlling traffic in certain areas e.g. around Heathrow.
6. Need to consider the impact on the rest of Uxbridge town centre (particularly the Pavilions) from the new Chimes development.
7. The lower Pavilions rents could enable specialist stores to move in to vacant units.
8. Concerns expressed about the Parking Standards review and the reduction of parking before there are public transport improvements are in place.
9. What will happen to land “freed up” by the reduction in off-street parking – concern about higher densities and increased plot ratios.
10. Concern that the benefits of Green Travel Plans are given too much emphasis.
11. The potential for s106 contribution needs to be emphasised in the UDP, as long as the money is spent appropriately and transparently
12. Welcome Supplementary Planning Guidance [SPG’s] which go into more detail on how s106 spent is being sought e.g. school places SPG.
13. An implementation chapter in the UDP would be beneficial, covering the implementation of major infrastructure proposals.
Local Group Meeting [South] Beck Theatre, Hayes
1. Playing fields should be protected in association with ‘Healthy Hillingdon’
2. Need to list and identify all public open spaces
3. Educational facilities such a pupil referral units need to be considered in developing the area
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 71 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4. Due to the ‘school run’ in and around Church Road, congestion is a problem. School travel plans and other initiatives should be introduced to ease congestion. This also applies to the following areas:
Hayes Football Stadium Hayes Manor School
5. Higher density developments should be sustainable and include play areas and public open spaces
6. Future developments should be maximising existing facilities and be more imaginative
7. Concern raised regarding the loss of the Grange community centre, now being converted to residential
8. Vacant sites such as the Hitachi site create areas for fly tipping and other forms of waste disposal by travellers currently residing at such sites. This also applies to areas of open space such as the Yeading Brook.
9. Harlington Village requires improvements to the environmental quality and appearance of the area.
10. The recycling scheme should be extended down to the south of the Borough
11. Bourne Avenue should increase residential element and Hayes Town Centre should welcome residential development to prevent development in the Green Belt.
12. Town centre developments such as the Station Road proposal should link in with the rest of the town centre.
13. Recycling of construction waste should be encouraged
14. Centres like Uxbridge Town centre should seek to maintain its original character and should keep large companies in the more accessible locations
15. There is a need for community facilities especially the elderly and the disabled
16. Should telecommunications masts be located on top of schools?
17. The proposal for a rail extension would be welcomed and should be incorporated into the UDP
18. The problem with public transport in Hayes could be helped with an Express Bus lane/service on the Hayes by-pass that links people to a tube station.
19. The car parking tariffs e.g. Pump Lane is too high for shoppers who will go elsewhere to shop and park for free.
20. There are areas in Hayes where Biodiversity can be protected and enhanced.
Local Group Meeting [North] Ruislip Methodist Church, Ruislip
1. Observed lower levels of affordable housing development in Ruislip
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 72 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2. Concern over ‘infilling’ [residential development] in South Ruislip
3. Intensification of development such as residential, may have an impact of open space provision especially green chains
4. Developers should make contributions to schooling
5. Need for East-West transport routes
6. The ‘school run’ needs to be tackled via promotion of alternative means of transportation
7. Congestion caused by on street car parking is a major problem on Sidmouth Drive and in which there may be a problem with the air quality in the area
8. Need to review car parking standards for schools
9. Design guides should be improved
10. Need to review Green Chains and Metropolitan Open Spaces [MOL’s]
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 73 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS INTELLIGENCE REPORT: PLANNING CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS ITEM 14 AND RECENT PLANNING ISSUES
CONTACT: Janet Rangeley/Andy Scate TEL: 01895 250553/250620
SUMMARY
This report informs Members of the publication of four key Government planning documents that are likely to affect Hillingdon and provides an update on the role of the Secretary of State in the planning process following a landmark ruling on the Human Rights Act.
Revised PPPG17 (March 2001) modernises the guidance contained within the 1991 version of PPG17 and extends its scope by dealing in more detail with open spaces. It provides general guidance on how sport and recreational issues should be dealt with within the planning process.
New PPG13 (March 2001) provides updated guidance on how transport issues should be dealt with within the planning process.
The final Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG 9), prepared by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, provides a regional framework for the preparation of local authorities development plans and, in London, for the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy (a separate report on the SDS appears elsewhere on the agenda)
Draft Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 is the latest consultation document providing advice to Local Authorities on flood risk and planning.
The Secretary of States Role in Planning decisions was recently challenged under the Human Rights Act. A recent ruling has however upheld the role of the Secretary of State and has stated that the Minister’s power is compatible with the Human Rights Convention.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Members endorse the officer comments set out in Paragraphs 10 to 13 as Hillingdon’s responses to ‘Draft Revised Planning Policy Guidance 17.
2. That Members note the contents of the remainder of the report.
INFORMATION
Revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 17:Sport, Open Space and Recreation – March 2001
1. This revised guidance was published in March 2001 and views are requested by the 15th June 2001. When finalised, it will replace the current PPG17 of 1991.
2. The guidance seeks to establish a framework within which development plan policies in respect of sport, open space and recreation should be set and which local planning authorities should use in reaching decisions on planning applications.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 74 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3. Local Authorities should plan for the broad range of recreational facilities that different groups within their communities are likely to need. The guidance distinguishes between formal recreational facilities and informal open space. Of importance, is the fact that the guidance expects authorities to adopt policies for the protection of existing and the provision of new facilities based on a robust assessment of need. These assessments should be done in close association with recreation departments and in association with adjacent authorities.
4. The guidance states that these assessments should cover the needs for all types of formal and informal recreation. This includes informal facilities such as parks, playgrounds, allotments and footpaths. It should also cover an assessment of existing facilities, their accessibility, usage, users, dual use potential, and the potential for improved design.
5. The guidance seeks to protect existing open space, sport and recreational buildings and land unless the planning authorities assessments of need show them to be clearly surplus to requirements. These requirements include whether such land is of value to the community, and whether there are sufficient open space provisions. That land which is to be protected should be shown on the UDP proposals map. This guidance also extends to playing fields, whether private, public or owned by voluntary organisations. In line with the Town and Country Planning Playing Fields Direction 1998, Sport England must be consulted on any development detrimental to the provision of playing fields.
6. The guidance also places the same principles of protection to recreational buildings, such as changing rooms, clubhouses, stadia, and sports centres. Again, Local Authorities should define on their UDP proposals maps those facilities, which are to be protected.
7. In terms of provision for new recreational facilities, the draft guidance provides broad locational principles to be followed when assessing new proposals. In line with other guidance, it states that those facilities attracting a significant number of people should be located in areas accessible by a choice of travel means, and intensive recreational uses should be located in or on the edge of town centres. Greenfield sites for built facilities should generally be avoided.
8. The guidance goes on to state that reallocation of land could be considered. Those non housing allocations if reviewed should first be considered for housing and secondly for recreational purposes.
9. The guidance also states that Local Authorities are justified in seeking planning obligations where a deficiency of recreational provision exists or is likely to occur as a result of a proposed development. They can be used to secure new facilities and to ensure the standards set out in the plan are achieved. For small developments, the guidance states that it may be appropriate for contributions to be made towards the enhancement or establishment of a nearby facility.
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION:
10. The guidance is welcomed as a much needed revision and update to the old PPG17 which is now outdated.
11. However, this planning authority would like to see further guidance on undertaking the need assessments mentioned in the document. Of particular importance, the guidance should indicate what standards for facilities are to be expected both now and in the future, and what types of recreational uses are to be assessed. It is not clear whether the authority will be expected to carry out needs assessments for each type of sporting activity and recreational use.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 75 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 12. A clearer definition of informal and formal open space is also sought, as some of the informal types of open space stated (e.g. children’s play areas with play facilities), could be classed as formal.
13. The authority would also have liked to see more emphasis placed on those areas of informal open space which provide more of a landscape/amenity role within urban areas, and those areas of woodland and countryside which also play an important recreational role.
Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 13 – Transport – March 2001
14. The new version of PPG13 (Transport) was published in March 2001. This follows the consultation draft of October 1999. The guidance provides advice to planning authorities on how Transportation issues should be handled within the planning process. The paragraphs below provide a very brief summary of some of the major issues contained in the document.
15. The guidance provides specific advice on planning policies for a range of issues from housing, retail, leisure, design and mobility, offices and ICT, education/health, rural areas and freight. The sequential approach to housing is repeated along with the need to use land efficiently for housing (between 30-50 dwellings per hectare) with higher densities in those locations which are accessible by public transport.
16. In terms of jobs, leisure and retail, the key objective is to ensure these services are accessible by the choice of means of transport. The guidance places importance on linking local transport plans and development plans, and should focus major generators of travel within town/district centres and near to public transport interchanges. Maximum use should be made of the most accessible sites and should reallocate sites which are in accessible locations to allow them to be used for more travel intensive uses.
17. The guidance now introduces Transport Assessments instead of Traffic Impact Assessments. These new assessments look at all aspects of the travel implications of a proposal, including cycling, walking and travel plans. Good practice guidance will be published on the expected content of such assessments.
18. In terms of safety and design, the guidance states that people should come before traffic with the emphasis on safety of travel no matter which transport mode is chosen, including emphasis on the needs of the disabled. Mixed uses are also promoted which by achieving a balance of housing and employment uses both on individual sites and also strategically across areas, will ensure long distance commuting is minimised.
19. In rural areas, the same principles should be applied with a view of reducing isolation of those without a car, and jobs, shopping and leisure uses should be focused in local service centres. Sufficient employment in rural areas will also help address long distance commuting into urban areas.
20. The guidance also emphasises the need to move more freight by rail or water with the need to identify and protect routes and interchanges. On disused transport sites, the first considered proposals should be sustainable transport uses.
21. In terms of parking, the guidance still advocates the use of maximum standards and sets out national standards. These have changed since the draft and generally they have become
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 76 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS slightly less onerous. For instance, the draft guidance set out a maximum standard for offices at 1:35 square metres gross, whilst the final version has reduced this to 1:30 square metres. A similar line has been taken on food retail which has been reduced to 1:14 from 1:18/1:20. Non food retail reduces from 1:20/1:22 to 1:20, and assembly and leisure uses reduces from 1:22/25 to 1:22.
22. Although these standards are far from onerous, the guidance does allow individual authorities to set their own more rigorous ones where appropriate. In the case of London, the Mayor has already published the Draft Transport Strategy (Jan 2001) and is soon to publish his Spatial Development Strategy which will seek more onerous parking standards. For instance, in the Draft Transport Strategy, for office developments in outer London, standards are mentioned of between 1 space per 300 square metres and 1:600. The first alteration to the Hillingdon UDP is proposing standards of 1:150 for office developments as the first stage in achieving the modal shift envisaged in the Mayor’s strategy.
23. Hillingdon’s interim standards as contained within the First Alteration to the UDP are based on Draft PPG13 (1999), PPG3 (Housing) residential standards, Strategic Planning Guidance for London RPG3 (1996) and Draft RPG9.
24. The National maximum parking standards in revised PPG13 only cover the following landuses (food and non-food retail/cinemas and conference facilities/stadia/higher education facilities/offices, research and development and light industry/ and night clubs, health clubs and swimming pools). PPG3 provides the residential parking standards. The London standard for B1 offices is contained within revised RPG9. The Mayor’s Strategy will set the London standards for a wide range of land uses taking into account the national and regional guidance of PPG13, PPG3 and RPG9.
25. The Council made a commitment when adopting its UDP in 1998 to begin an early review of car parking standards. This review was carried out in conjunction with the Council’s Draft Parking Strategy undertaken in 1999/2000. Although revised PPG13 sets national guidelines, the UDP’s of the London Borough’s must conform to Strategic Planning Guidance for London (1996) shortly to be superceded by the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy. PPG13 allows more onerous standards to be set where appropriate. It is envisaged that the standards in the SDS will reflect the particular transport problems in London and will therefore lend strong support for Hillingdon’s proposed revised parking standards.
26. Officers are currently responding to the objections received to the new revised parking standards and following negotiations with objectors will be submitting a report to the October meeting of Environment Committee.
27. Another major change from the draft guidance is on park and ride schemes which can now be acceptable within the Green Belt, where such locations are shown to be the most sustainable. In terms of parking at train stations, the guidance stresses that a balance needs to be struck between allowing high density development adjacent to stations whilst still allowing some parking which will encourage rail use over a longer distance.
28. On issues such as congestion charging and workplace parking levy, any proposals for these should be in line with the Regional Transport Strategies and Local Transport Plans.
29. Issues such as public transport, cycling and walking are also given maximum encouragement and local authorities are urged to use their powers through local transport plans, walking and cycling strategies to help improve these modes of travel. In Greater London park and
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 77 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ride, congestion and workplace charging and sustainable transportation will be considered as strategic issues with the lead coming from the Mayors Strategy.
30. Greater London has its own arrangements for the integration between planning and transport. The Mayor’s spatial development strategy and Transport Strategy must be consistent with each other and Borough’s will be expected to produce Local Implementation Plans setting out their proposals on how they intend to put the Transport Strategy into effect. These plans will be subject to the Mayor’s approval.
Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG) 9
31. Members will be aware of the report to the last Environment Committee, which outlined the contents of, proposed changes to the Draft RPG9 and the comments which this authority made. These proposed changes purely related to the housing figures in the Rest of the South East outside London (ROSE). The final version of the RPG has now been published (March 2001) with the final housing figures within it.
32. The housing figures have not been changed since the December Draft and therefore remain at 39,000 dwellings to be provided per annum in each of the ROSE Counties (the current rate of completions) up to 2006. The Government has stressed that this is subject to the plan, monitor and manage approach and will be subject to review in the next five years in response to monitoring and other information.
Draft Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 – Development and Flood Risk
33. In January 2001, another revision to the Draft PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) was published. This guidance explains how flood risk should be considered at all stages of the planning and development process in order to reduce future damage to property and loss of life.
34. The guidance states that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning consideration and that the Environment Agency has the lead role in providing advice on flood issues, at a strategic level and in relation to planning applications.
35. It also states that Development Plans should outline the consideration which will be given to flood issues, recognising the uncertainties that are inherent in the prediction of flooding and that flood risk is expected to increase as a result of climate change. It goes on to state that planning decisions should apply the precautionary principle to the issue of flood risk, using a risk based search sequence to avoid such risk where possible and managing it elsewhere.
36. Planning decisions should recognise the importance of functional flood plains, where water flows or is held at times of flood, and avoid inappropriate development on undeveloped and undefended flood plains. If necessary, developers should fund flood defences and warning measures required because of the development and planning policies and decisions should recognise that the consideration of flood risk and its management needs to be applied on a whole catchment basis and not be restricted to flood plains.
37. The final version of this guidance will be expected after the new Government is formed.
The Secretary of State’s Role in Planning Decisions and Human Rights Act – Ruling
38. In early May, the House of Lords made a landmark decision, which has upheld the role of the Secretary of State in using his powers to call in and decide planning applications. The five Law
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 78 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Lords unanimously said that the Secretary of State’s role in the planning system is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
39. This ruling follows four cases which had been heard in the High Court which ruled that the powers of the Secretary of State contravened article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because they did not give individuals the chance of a fair hearing from an independent and impartial body. The Lords have decided that although the Secretary of State is not independent, the right of appeal against his decisions to the High Court is enough to provide a fair hearing. (Lord Nolan said that the Environment Secretary exercised a degree of central control but had to answer to Parliament for the way in that he used it. To substitute this accountability with an unelected body, would be undemocratic).
40. This decision means that the planning system as is currently operating remains unchanged and those applications which have been called in and awaiting decision, or those which will be in the future, can be determined in the usual way.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
41. New Planning Guidance is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications.
42. With the House of Lords Ruling, the legal powers of the Secretary of State in the planning process remain unchanged.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
43. The recommendations to note the report and to endorse the officer comments, have no financial implications
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 17:Sport, Open Space and Recreation – March 2001 – Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 13 – Transport – March 2001 - Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG 9) by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2001.
Draft Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 – Development and Flood Risk 2001 - Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 79 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS PLANNING APPEALS 1998-2001 ITEM 15
CONTACT OFFICER: Mark Silverman TELEPHONE: 01895 250552
SUMMARY
As part of the monitoring of Hillingdon’s adopted UDP (September 1998), an initial study of planning appeals in Hillingdon since January 1998 has been undertaken. The analysis considered the total number of appeals between January 1998 and May 2001 as well as the success of the Council in defending its decisions, on an area-by-area basis and an overall comparison with adjoining authorities. Although a more detailed breakdown and analysis will be carried out in due course, the study revealed an increasing number of appeals in the borough (40% more appeals per quarter in 2001 than 1998), a concentration of appeals in Ruislip and Northwood, a borough- wide success rate of 70% in defending appeals with the lowest success rate for the Council being in Ruislip and Hayes.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That members note the findings of the first stage of this appeals analysis and its implications for land use planning in Hillingdon and the review of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
2. Request officers to bring the next stage of the analysis to the October 2nd meeting of this committee and subsequent appeals monitoring information to planning sub- committees on a regular basis.
INFORMATION
1. Planning decisions are required by s54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be determined in accordance with development plan policies unless there any material considerations indicate otherwise. Nevertheless, in most cases, applicants are able to exercise a right of appeal against any refusal by the Council to allow permission for their development proposals. The appeals are considered independently of the Council by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). Although most appeals are lodged against a refusal of planning permission, provisions exist to appeal where the Council have:
· failed to give a decision on an application within the prescribed period for doing so (8 weeks) · refused outline planning permission. · refused listed building or conservation area consent · refused “express consent” for advertisements · refused to allow development under the General Permitted Development Order · refusal to grant permission for reserved matters or other “details” pursuant to a planning approval · imposed conditions which the applicant considers to be unreasonable or unfair
2. As part of the UDP review, which includes monitoring the policies in the adopted UDP of September 1998, the Projects and Environmental Planning team are undertaking a comprehensive review of planning appeals since 1998. A more detailed analysis of the appeals will be carried out over the coming months but in the interim, an outline summary of appeals has
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 80 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS been carried out for the 1998-2001 period. This report assesses the total number of appeals lodged between January 1998 and the beginning of May 2001 including: · The number of appeals dismissed each year · The number of appeals allowed each year · The number of appeals withdrawn each year · The number of appeals awaiting decision each
Data has been broken down geographically to cover the following areas across the borough:
North Central South Ruislip Uxbridge Hayes N’wood/N’wood Hills Yiewsley/West Drayton Harlington Eastcote Cowley Harmondsworth Ickenham Hillingdon Longford Harefield Sipson
3. A full area-by-area breakdown of the data can be viewed in the Appendix to this report. However, a borough-wide summary of these figures, set out in Table 1, reveals that 70% of appeals lodged against the Council’s planning decisions, for which decisions were made, were dismissed by the DETR over the 3 years and 4 months covered in this study. This compares favourably with adjoining boroughs and districts, over the same period, who have success rates at appeal varying between 47% and 60%.
Table 2. Summary of planning appeals in Hillingdon and adjoining authorities between 01001.98 to 01.05.98 Total % allowed % dismissed % split Appeals decision/varied enforcement notice Hillingdon 353 25 70 5
Ealing 445 35 60 5
Harrow 351 43 52 5
Hounslow 347 32 60 8
Slough 128 33 56 11
Spelthorne 125 37 47 16
Three Rivers 224 36 60 4
4. The figures for the total number of appeals received each year indicate that the number of planning appeals is now increasing again. Following a reduction in 1999 to 20.7 appeals per quarter, 2000 and 2001 have shown an increase on 1998 with an average of 30.7 per quarter in 2000 and 35.2 per quarter so far in 2001. Almost one-third of all appeals since 1998 have been “householder” appeals against refusals for extensions and alterations to domestic properties. The proportion of refusals which have been successfully defended by the Council has varied but not
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 81 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS dropped below 65% in any year. Although only seven appeals have been determined so far in 2001, the Council has achieved an 86% success rate this year.
Table 2. Breakdown of planning appeals in London Borough of Hillingdon 01.01.98 to 01.05.01 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total (to 01.05.01)
Appeals 100 (25 83 (20.7 per 123 (30.7 47 (35.2 per qtr) 353 (26.4 per per qtr) qtr) per qtr) qtr) North 45 38 55 20 142
Decisions 44 (77% 28 (78% 32 (65% 4 (100% 107 (75% Made1 dismissed) dismissed) dismissed) dismissed) dismissed) (20% (19% (26% (0% allowed) (21% allowed) allowed) allowed) allowed)
Central 23 21 36 16 96
Decisions 17 (59% 17 (88% 33 (21% 1 68 (72% Made1 dismissed) dismissed) dismissed) dismissed) (41% (12% (79% (24% allowed) allowed) allowed) allowed)
South 32 24 32 11 99
Decisions 28 (61% 22 (73% 25(65% 0 77 (64% made1 dismissed) dismissed) dismissed) dismissed) (36% (26% (35% (31% allowed) allowed) allowed) allowed)
Decisions 89 67 90 7 253 made
Allowed 26 (29%) 12 (18%) 24 (27%) 0 (0%) 62 (25%)
Dismissed 60 (67%) 53 (79%) 59 (65%) 6 (86%) 178 (70%)
Part 3 (4%) 2 (3%) 7 (8%) 1 (14%) 13 (5%) Dismissed/ Part Allowed or Varied enforceme nt notice
Total 13 14 18 4 49 Withdrawn
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 82 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Awaiting 1 2 7 39 49 decision
1 Although the Decisions Made totals include “part dismissed/part allowed or varied enforcement notices”, the percentage figures for this type of decision are not included in this part of the table.
Source: Planning and Transportation Services Appeals File
5. There are a number of possible explanations for the overall increase in the number of planning appeals being lodged. These include:
· Applications, which could be amended, but are refused in quick time to ensure that they are determined within 8 weeks. This has particularly been the case with the large numbers of householder applications received. The increased number of refusals has inevitably led to more appeals. · The failure of the Council to determine applications within 8 weeks has led to a substantial number of applicants exercising their right to appeal against “non-determination”. · There are a number of agents/architects who submit schemes solely on the basis of their client’s preferences in the knowledge that the proposals are likely to be refused. This invariably leads to a number of appeals against these refusals. Agents/architects who adopt this are generally assumed to specialise in householder applications.
6. It should be noted that a significant number of appeals (14%) have been withdrawn by appellants after the lodging of the initial appeal. However, in many cases, an appeal is only withdrawn at a late stage, by which time officers have prepared written statements and proofs of evidence. 69% of all appeals received were in the form of “written representation appeals”, whereby the appeal is conducted solely through written correspondence. Nevertheless, 21% of appeals were scheduled to involve an informal hearing and 9% a local inquiry. These latter two appeal formats, in particular, require substantial officer(s) time.
7. Although a substantial proportion of the Council’s planning decisions have been contested, the 70% success rate of the Council indicates that the UDP policies against which decisions are primarily judged, have been fairly robust. The detailed appeals analysis, to be carried over the coming months, will break down each appeal according to the main policies relevant to each case. It will then be possible to consider whether certain policies need to be retained, amended or even deleted from the emerging UDP.
8. The geographical break down of appeals since 1998 reveals that the highest number of appeals have consistently been against planning decisions in the north of the borough. In particular, the Ruislip area, within the north area, has seen the most planning appeals with an average of 21.6 appeals per year. Nevertheless, the single area with the largest number of appeals has been Hayes with an average of 24.3 appeals per year. The most obvious explanation for the high proportion of appeals in Hayes and Ruislip is that, in containing large sections of Hillingdon’s housing stock, they have generated higher numbers of householder applications. Householder proposals have been responsible for a higher proportion of appeals than any other development type accounting for approximately 31% of all appeals since January 1998.
9. The Council has generally enjoyed similar success rates at appeal (around 70%) across the borough. With the exception of Harlington (38% success rate but only 8 appeals determined since 1998), the only areas with slightly lower success rates were Hayes (66%) and Uxbridge (62%). A more detailed breakdown and analysis of the appeals in these areas may identify why appellants Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 83 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS within these areas have had won more of their appeals. However, the Hayes and Uxbridge areas contain a significant number of non-residential uses, with substantial amounts of retail and commercial floorspace. Whereas householder appeals generally raise no more than one or two issues, relating to the size and appearance of a residential extension, town centre and other commercial applications can raise a number of more complex issues. The interpretation of policies relating to noise and disturbance, town centre vitality, traffic congestion and so on, tends to be far more subjective. It is more likely, therefore, that these policies will be (successfully) challenged than the straightforward, clearcut policies and guidance on residential extensions which are open to less interpretation.
NEXT STAGE
10. The next stage of the analysis will consider whether specific policies have been sufficiently robust, when challenged at appeal, by looking at each appeal decision in more detail. This will inform the on-going review of the Unitary Development Plan and provide an indication of whether policies need to be retained, amended or deleted from the Plan. It will also provide an indication of the costs implications for the Council, including the staff resources involved in defending planning appeals
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
11. None.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
12. The Borough Treasurer has confirmed that the recommendations have no financial implications. However, the number of appeals will inevitably have resource implications with regard to the staff in development control responsible for defending the Council at appeal. In addition, the number of appeals against non-determination may require more scrutiny; a backlog of unassigned planning applications will invariably lead to an increase in appeals against non- determination within 8 weeks.
13. Appeals can be resource intensive, particularly those that are considered at an informal hearing or local inquiry. Along with the preparation of statements of case and proofs of evidence, officer time is required during normal office hours in order to attend internal and external meetings and liaise with the DETR and other parties. Appeals, therefore, take up officer time at the expense of other tasks, including the determination of other planning applications. Nevertheless, the number of appeals against non-determination ought to be considered within the context of current development control staffing levels and the correlation between current officer numbers and unassigned planning applications in the department.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Planning and Transportation Services Appeals File Ocella database
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 84 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 85 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 86 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 87 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 88 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 89 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 90 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 91 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 92 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 93 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS THE URBAN WHITE PAPER - THE NEXT STEPS ITEM 16
CONTACT OFFICER: Jean Palmer EXTENSION: 7980
SUMMARY
This report sets out the key points in the Government's Urban White Paper.
It also sets out proposals for further work by officers in Planning and Transportation to ensue that they will be ready to take up key opportunities for the Borough as legislation and initiatives from the White Paper come on stream.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Members note the contents of this report;
2. Members instruct officers to report back to October Committee on progress to date and a timescale for development of further work by the Planning and Transportation Division.
BACKGROUND
1 In June 1999, Sir Richard Rogers' Urban Task Force, reported its findings in its report " Towards an Urban Renaissance". The Urban White Paper was subsequently published in December 2000. Recently, the Government has produced an Implementation Plan to take forward the White Paper.
2 The Mayors Initial Proposals for the Spatial Development Strategy 'Towards a London Plan" published on 8th May 2001, (and subject of another report on this agenda), has had regard to the Urban White Paper in its drafting. It will be necessary for Hillingdon to do the same in the review of its own Unitary Development Plan (UDP), which is currently underway.
PURPOSE OF THE URBAN WHITE PAPER
3 The quality of the urban environment is crucial to the success of sustained communities. The White Paper recognises the need to improve the standard of urban planning and design, but to link all policies together to ensure that people from across the social spectrum, want to live, and work and stay in our urban communities.
4 The policies and proposals in this document clearly link up to form part of the emerging community plans, and the move towards a 'one council' approach.
5 The vision for towns, cities and suburbs is clear, it is to see:-
· People shaping the future of their community, supported by strong and truly representative local leaders;
· People living in attractive, well kept towns and cities which use space and buildings well;
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 94 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · Good design and planning which makes it practical to live in a more environmentally sustainable way, less noise, pollution and traffic congestion;
· Town and cities able to create and share prosperity, investing to help all their citizens reach their full potential; and
· Good quality services - health, education, housing, transport, finance, shopping, leisure and protection from crime - that meet the needs of people and businesses wherever they are.
6 This urban renaissance is seen as of benefit to everyone. Towns, cities and suburbs will become vibrant, but the countryside protected from development pressure.
KEY POINTS
7 The White Papers' approach to delivering better towns and cities, can be summarised as follows:-
· Resources to make a Difference
- By 2003 / 2004 additional £33 billion per annum, most to be spent in urban areas. - Setting targets for improved performance to ensure effective spending of money - - Encouraging Public Service Agreements.
· Delivering Change in the Local Area
- Local area strategies to suit local areas. - Community involvement and sustained engagement. - Everyone to be included - Community Partnerships (links with the modernising 1 agenda for local government).
· Effective and Accountable Local Government
- Community Planning Process. - The Power and Duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well being of their local areas - the production of a Community Strategy. The duty of Best Value.
· Local Strategic Partnerships
- Local Strategic Partnerships - should rationalise and co-ordinate existing partnerships. - Develop a Community Strategy.
KEY ISSUES FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
8 The White Paper is concerned that "Places are for People", and although clearly it is a paper which cuts across all Council services, there are many elements which are the direct responsibility of the Planning and Transportation to respond to, or lead in that response separately. These can be summarised as:-
· Better Planning and Design.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 95 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · Bringing back previously developed and empty property bank into beneficial use.
· Look after the existing urban environment better.
· Town Centre Management
9 These will be considered in turn:-
· Better Planning and Design
· Better delivery of Local Planning services:-
- Planning Co-ordinates. - Development Plans. - Better and more efficient decision-making on planning applications. - Tighter performance on planning appeals.
· Electronic planning
- Development Planning Portal on the Internet.
· Major Projects
- Consultation on improved handling of major projects.
· Local Participation
- Clearer plans - Supplementary Planning Guidance at local level. - Greater community consultation. - Look at alternatives to development plan making. - Greater community involvement in design process. - Planning obligations: - A consultation paper on reviewing current system
- And possibility of import fees.
- Encourage master planning.
· Possible Beacon Council Scheme for Urban Design.
· Modernise Building Regulations
- Can they be used to improve security systems?
Bringing Back Previously Used (Brownfield Sites and Empty Property Back into Use
· Empty Property
- Development of empty property strategies. - Proposals to create 100% capital allowance for creating "flats over shops".
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 96 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS - Proposals to reform VAT, to 5% for residential conversions and remove VAT on houses which have been empty for 10+ years.
· Brownfield Land
- Review CPO system. - Emerge joint initiatives with private sector partners to bring Brownfield land into use. - Proposals for an "English Cities Fund".
· Looking After the Existing Urban Environment Better
- Reducing traffic congestion. - Funding traffic management schemes. - Providing cleaner smarter public transport (e.g. trams) - Funding Home Zones - Piloting Clear zones - Funding safer routes to schools and cycle-ways.
· Town Centre Management
· Proposals for Town Improvement Schemes
- Supplementary Brussels rate where local authorities could raise a supplement to support a particular scheme (with business agreeement / partnership).
· Proposals for a New Opportunities Fund.
· Continuing funding for urban renewal via Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage.
IMPLEMENTATION
10 Some proposals and initiatives have already been developed by Central Government and are ready for local authorities to develop strategies, and others are at either pilot or still at consultation stage. Appendix A sets out the Government's progress to date.
NEXT STEPS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
11 Clearly the Borough needs to be ready to take advantage of these opportunities, and already there is much work underway both within Planning and Transportation, the Environmental Services Directorate, and Corporately in order to do this.
12 There is much work for the Planning and Transportation Division to do, in order to play its part.
13 There is a further report on this agenda covering the Development Control service in Hillingdon. The ability for Local Planning Authorities to perform adequately in this area is a key point in the Urban White Papers proposals.
14 It is now proposed to produce a series of reports for this Committee on these parts of the Urban White Paper which falls in the responsibility of Planning and Transportation Division, starting with the October Committee.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 97 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 15 This October report will also identify the full series of action reports on this Paper, and when Members can expect to consider them.
COMMENTS OF THE BOROUGH TREASURER
16 The recommendations to note the report and to report back, have no financial implications.
LEGAL COMMENTS
17 Whilst the report sets out the Government's proposals for improving the environment in which people live it should be noted that this can only be achieved within the legal framework which currently exists or will be created to facilitate the aims contained in the White Paper.
CONCLUSION
18 This report has just concentrated on the work required for Planning and Transportation. Although some of this is exclusively a town planning responsibility, many parts will require a corporate view and all will have a community involvement element.
19 The White Paper appears to offer considerable opportunities to improve the quality of life in our Borough, and it is essential to be ready to take up as many opportunities as possible as and when they arise.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Urban White Paper
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 98 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS APPENDIX A
URBAN WHITE PAPER – PROGRESS TO DATE
UWP Commitment What has happened
Help local authorities and On 14 December 2000 guidance was housebuilders implement the new issued on urban housing capacity policy on brownfield sites studies, Tapping the potential - Assessing Urban Housing Capacity: Towards Better Practice, and on how to manage land release, Planning to deliver - the managed release of housing sites: Towards Better Practice.
Modernise the way Building On 19 January 2001, a consultation Regulations work to assure the safety document was issued proposed and quality of the urban environment revised standards of sound insulation between homes and proposing extending the regulation to cover external noise.
Encourage the use of empty or under- In the Budget 2001, the government used property announced:
- a cut in VAT to 5% for residential-to-residential conversions - a cut in VAT to zero for the sale of renovated homes empty for ten years or more - a cut in VAT to 5% on the cost of renovating homes empty for 3 years or more - a 100% capital allowance for creating flats over shops for letting.
These measures will come into effect as soon as the necessary Finance Act receives Royal Assent. Help local authorities to tackle low The Housing Policy Statement - The demand for housing Way Forward for Housing made in Parliament on 13 December 2000 included proposals for more flexible stock management, encouraging mixed communities, making it easier for local authorities to identify areas for Area Renewal and reforms to lettings systems. Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 99 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UWP Commitment What has happened
Encourage businesses and people to In the Budget 2001, the government return to urban brownfield sites confirmed the exemption from Stamp Duty for property transactions in disadvantaged areas. It also confirmed the introduction of tax credits for the cost of cleaning up contaminated land but this is to be at 150% rather than 100% as proposed in the Pre-Budget Report. These measures will come into effect as soon as the necessary Finance Act receives Royal Assent. Bring new investment, people and On 2 February a new URC in Corby business into some of the country's key was announced. The government has urban areas through establishing now also given its support to the setting Urban Regeneration Companies. up of URCs in Leicester and Sunderland. These will be launched shortly by the local partners. Today a document setting out criteria for the principles guiding the operation of URCs was issued and proposals for new URCs will now be considered against these. Engage the private sector in The European Commission have regeneration by finding long term approved four new schemes which are alternatives to the Partnership part of a package of measures Investment Programme (PIP) designed to replace PIP. The approved schemes cover direct development, speculative gap funding, non-speculative gap funding and community regeneration. A decision on a fifth scheme - environmental regeneration for soft end uses - is expected by the end of March.
A joint DETR / Barclays Bank seminar to discuss alternative public / private partnership arrangements was held on 14 March. Those present included representatives from property development companies, lenders, development agencies and Government Departments.
Government is continuing to explore with the European Commission the possibility of a new regeneration framework under
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 100 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UWP Commitment What has happened
Revitalise town and city centres On 6 February 2001, Birmingham, Croydon, Gravesham, Nottingham, Reading and Shrewsbury and Atcham were awarded Beacon Council status for their work on town centre regeneration. They will share best practice with other councils.
Help restore our national heritage In the Budget 2001, the government announced a temporary new grant scheme, equivalent to a reduction in VAT to 5%, to help with repair and maintenance cost of listed buildings which are used as places of worship.
Help local authorities and others In February 2001, we published revised assess the impact of climate change draft PPG25, Development and Flood and plan to adapt to it. Risk, which includes a risk-based sequential test to reduce the potential impact of flooding while allowing appropriate development of previously developed land that is adequately protected. The final version is due to be published by summer 2001.
Improve the way we plan for open On 21 March we issued a draft of space. PPG 17, Sports and Recreation, for consultation. Comments are due in by 15 June 2001.
Strengthen the role of the RDAs as On 9 March, the Deputy Prime Minister strategic leaders of economic and the Chancellor announced targets development for the RDAs Single Budgets. These included, under the objectives "To promote social cohesion and sustainable development through integrated local regeneration programmes', an Urban outcome target: 'Working with the Local Strategic Partnerships, contribute to the renaissance of towns and cities so that negative current population trends in key urban areas are reversed and the numbers living and / or working there are increasing'.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 101 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UWP Commitment What has happened
Create and share prosperity On 13 February, the government issued a White Paper Enterprise, Skills and Innovation: Opportunity for all in a world of change, which set out proposals for raising GDP in all regions, closing the skills gap, helping industry through restructuring and nurturing new industries as they develop.
Create the right environment for www.ukonline.gov.uk went live at the e-commerce to thrive end of 2000, providing a single online point of entry to government information and services.
Support the growth of community On 1 March, the Treasury issued a development finance for businesses in consultation document on a new tax under-invested areas credit for private investment in disadvantaged areas, Enterprising communities: A tax incentive for community investment. Comments are due by 2 July. Improve public transport; better access In the Local Transport Settlement on to town centres, jobs and services; 14 December 2000, the government better integrated transport systems announced £8.4 billion for local transport over the next 5 years. The £1.3 billion public and private investment announced in the 10-Year Plan for Transport in July 2000.
Transform the most deprived areas On 15 January 2001, the Social Exclusive Unit issued A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan, setting out how government will work with local partners to make neighbourhood renewal happen. On 24 January 2001, the government announced a doubling to £200 m the size of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund in 2001/02, taking the total to £900 over 3 years.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 102 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UWP Commitment What has happened
Ensure that services meet the needs of A new initiative was launched on local residents and communities 15 January 2001 to identify 15 partnerships which will test neighbourhood management experiments. Ministers expect to announce the pilot test areas in April. On 13 February 2001 a further 36 Neighbourhood Warden schemes was approved in addition to the 50 announced in February 2000. Wardens will improve the quality of life by promoting community safety, helping with environmental improvements and housing management and contributing to community development.
UWP Commitment What has happened
Promote sustainable communities On 13 December 2000, DETR launched its Starter Home Initiative, inviting bids from registered social landlords, local authorities and others for schemes aimed at housing key workers such as teachers, policemen and nurses. These bids are currently being assessed by the Housing Corporation and DETR. Ministers expect to announce the successful bids in the summer.
In November 2000, DETR invited bids for an £11 m fund for pilot new style lettings schemes, intended to give local authority tenants more choice in where they live. DETR is currently considering the bids and expects to announce those which have been successful in the spring.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 103 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UWP Commitment What has happened
Demonstrate the impact of cultural, On 6 February 2001 Knowsley, sport and tourism facilities on Nottingham, Gateshead and regeneration Sunderland were awarded Beacon Council status for their work in this area. They will share best practice with other councils.
Promote a standard set of urban and DETR has let a contract for this work rural definitions for use in analysis and which will report in summer 2001. monitoring These definitions are an essential underpinning to the evaluation work which is described below.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 104 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS REPORT FOR MEMBERS ON THE APPEAL AT HILLINGDON HOSPITAL, ITEM 17 PIELD HEATH ROAD, HILLINGDON
CONTACT OFFICER: David Cassells/ Mario Leo TELEPHONE: 3758
SUMMARY
This report has been prepared to inform the Members of the implications of a decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Region, on an appeal by Hillingdon Hospital Trust. The decision highlights the problems facing the local planning authority and the local housing authority in the provision of affordable housing to meet the identified housing need.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members:
1. Note the contents of the report
2. Authorise officers to consider an appropriate course of action(s) to address the matters raised
3. To report back to the Committee on the action(s) to be taken
INFORMATION
1. This report has been prepared to inform the Members of the implications of a decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Region, on an appeal under section 78 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against the Councils failure to determine a planning application within the statutory period for the erection of a residential development and new access road from Pield Heath Road at the Hillingdon Hospital (North Site), Pield Heath Road, Hillingdon.
The Site and Surrounding Area
2. The appeal related to a site approximately 10 acres, located some 3 miles from the Uxbridge Town Centre. The site is bounded to the east by Colham Road; to the west by Royal Lane and to the south by Pield Heath Road with Hillingdon Hospital beyond. To the north of the site lies a hospital boiler house, a clinical waste incinerator and an access road off Royal Lane, which services the incinerator. Beyond this lies a residential development (Wimpy Homes).
3. The site currently accommodates the mental health unit, a day nursery, a child therapy unit, a GP surgery, a hearing aid centre, sports and social club and the existing nurses’ home. The site was declared surplus to the Hospital Trust’s requirements.
The Proposal
4. The Hospital Health Trust, as the applicant, submitted a planning application for residential development on land in two categories. Firstly, they proposed to update and reproduce existing nurses’ accommodation on approximately 29% of the available land. Secondly, the erection of open market housing on the remainder.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 105 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 5. The existing nurses’ accommodation currently provides 231 bedspaces, which are in a poor standard. A typical accommodation comprises approximately 11m2 in size, in corridor format with shared facilities of up to 25 persons per communal bathroom and kitchen. There are no en-suite bathroom facilities. The proposed accommodation would be for 226 single bedroom flats in small four or six bedroom clusters. A typical unit would be approximately 15m2 in size and would include en-suite bathroom. It was also proposed to provide additional 20 units to be ‘married quarters accommodation’ in the form of 10 one-bedroom flats and 10 two-bedroom units. In total 246 units were proposed for nurses accommodation. 102 open market housing was proposed on the remainder of the site.
6. In principle, residential development was considered appropriate on the site. The only issue was whether the scheme provided affordable housing in accordance with the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.
The Issue at the Inquiry
7. There was no dispute that the housing development was of more than one hectare and would trigger the requirement under the UDP policies for the Council to seek the provision of at least 25% affordable housing. Policy H11 state: “Where residential development of 25 or more dwellings, or of sites of one or more hectare is proposed, the local planning authority will enter into negotiations and where appropriate legal agreements with developers to obtain the highest acceptable proportion of affordable housing”
8. Officers considered that whilst the re-provision of nurses accommodation was acceptable, it was felt that its provision did not, in this case, satisfy the requirements of policy H11 because:
(a)The type of accommodation being proposed - single person’s flats instead of family housing would not meet priority housing needs, as identified by the Council in its Housing Strategy 2001/2 and 2003/4.
(b) The nurses accommodation would not generally be available to local people in housing need - households on the Council’s Housing Register, as the Trust will have first refusal to all units and the Council will not have any nomination rights.
9. As it was considered that the key worker accommodation did not comprise the necessary element of affordable housing to comply with UDP policy H11, officers requested 25% of the housing, which was to be constructed for the open market, for affordable housing to meet the Council’s housing needs.
10. In response, the Hospital Trust said that the re-provision of nurses’ accommodation satisfied UDP Policy H11 because the redevelopment of the outdated nurses home would provide new accommodation for key workers. According to the Trust, the proposed accommodation fell within the definition of affordable housing for the purposes of Circular 6/98. Paragraph 4 of this Circular provides a definition for “affordability” being housing that will be available to those who cannot afford property in the open market. Therefore, the affordable housing for key workers equated to a minimum of 71% of the total development (246 units/348 total units x 100=71%). This exceeds the Council’s target of 25%. The Trust also claimed that to provide an additional 25% from the open market site to meet the Council’s priority housing needs would render the development unviable.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 106 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 11. Because we could not reach an agreement the application was recommended for refusal and minded to refuse planning permission. The recommendation was agreed by the Uxbridge Sub-Committee for the following reason:
‘The proposed residential development would not provide an element of affordable housing that would meet the Council’s identified priority-housing need. The proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan, in particular, Pt1.17 and Policy H11.’
12. At appeal the Trust was successful in that the Inspector formed a view that the re-provision did meet our requirement for affordable housing. The Inspector also awarded costs against the Council on the grounds that the Council misinterpreted policy H11. To date, the cost has not been qualified by the appellant.
Affordable Housing Policies
13. What this case does is draw to our attention issues concerning the existing policies that we have in respect of affordable housing and changes in government guidance on formulating such policies.
14. The current UDP policy H11 is based on the guidance set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) 1992, and Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities (RPG3 1996). They both set out guidance for meeting housing need, including the contribution that can be made to affordable housing needs. Paragraph 38 of PPG3: Housing 1992 states:
“Where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, authorities may indicate an overall target for the provision of affordable housing throughout the plan area, based on evidence of need and site suitability. Authorities may reasonably seek to negotiate with developers for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing in such schemes, both on sites allocated for housing in the development plan and on other (windfall) sites. Planning Authorities may also include policies in plans indicating their intention to do so.”
15. This theme was also carried through in Circular 6/98 ‘Planning & Affordable Housing’. Paragraph 5 of this Circular state:
“Any local plan policy for affordable housing should be based on a good understanding of the needs of the area over a period of the development plan. The need should be clear from the assessment used to develop the authority’s housing strategy.”
16. Previous Government guidance therefore focussed on the provision of affordable housing based on a good understanding of the needs of the area. The needs of an area were identified via data produced by local housing authorities. The weakness of this approach was, to an extent, that it focussed on those groups that the local housing authority were seeking to provide housing for.
17. Since the adoption of Policy H11, Government guidance has evolved. Central Government now advises local planning authorities to formulate policies to meet the needs of a variety of groups in addition to those requiring affordable housing. The previous PPG3 mad reference to the provision of affordable housing for a variety of groups in paragraph 42. The revised PPG3 puts greater emphasis and definition on the policy formulation for these groups. It advises local planning authorities and local housing authorities to assess the range of housing needs in their locality. Those people on the Council’s housing register is just one of many groups the local planning authority must consider in formulating affordable housing policy.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 107 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 18. This approach is contained in paragraph 13 of the revised PPG 3: Housing (2000), which state:
“Assessments of housing need which underpin local housing strategies and local plan policies, are matters for local authorities to undertake in the light of their local circumstances. Local planning authorities should work jointly with housing departments to assess the range of needs for different types and sizes of housing across all tenures in their area. The should include affordable housing and housing to help meet the needs of specific groups – the elderly, the disabled, students and young single people, rough sleepers, the homeless and those who need hostel accommodation, key workers, travellers and occupiers of mobile homes and houseboats. Local assessments should consider not only the need for new housing but ways in which the existing stock might be better utilised to meet the needs of the community”
19. The issue in this case was whether the provision of accommodation for key workers met the requirements of policy H11. The inspector’s view was that it did on the basis that our policy failed to prioritise the needs of various groups requiring affordable housing, and that ‘nurses’ met the definition of people requiring the provision of affordable housing as identified in paragraph 7.25 of the UDP.
20. The inspector’s reasons for allowing the decision can be found in paragraphs 9-22 of the attached decision letter. In coming to his decision, the Inspector analysed the relevant texts in the UDP. In considering policy H11 the Inspector firstly considers the definition of affordable housing in the UDP paragraph 7.25. In paragraph 7 of the decision letter, the Inspector quotes the UDP definition of affordable housing, as “that which is accessible to people whose income are insufficient to enable them to afford adequate housing locally in the local market”. The Inspector then uses this definition as a test to assess the proposed key worker accommodation. The Inspector’s subsequent findings in paragraph 13 that “ nearly all of the groups of medical and healthcare professionals who would occupy the staff accommodation would be unable to afford housing on the open market, whether to rent or buy” clearly means that this element of the UDP policy was met.
21. The Inspector then goes on to consider paragraph 7.28 of the UDP. He concludes that the reference to the “substantial nomination rights to the Council” does not on its face allow the Council to influence those who occupy the affordable housing accommodation but is designed to ensure that the accommodation remains “affordable” in perpetuity. The applicant’s unilateral undertaking ensures that the accommodation remains affordable throughout its life.
22. The Inspector does consider the Council’s argument as to the interpretation of PPG3 in paragraph 15. The Council’s case was that whilst key worker accommodation may qualify as affordable housing, the revised PPG, by using the word “and” does not automatically define it as such. Therefore in Hillingdon the affordable housing provision should be for those identified by the local housing authority to be in priority housing need.
23. The inspector did not reject this approach. In paragraph 16 he notes that policy makes “clear that a Council’s assessment of housing needs and its housing strategy should underpin affordable housing policies”. However in summarising his reasons he finds “The proposed affordable housing would not provide accommodation for those that the Council have identified in priority housing need, but for the reasons already given, meeting those needs does not outweigh determining the application in accordance with the development plan.” The “reasons already
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 108 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS given” are that the Council’s housing needs survey is out of date and that its findings and objectives are not within the wording of the plan.
24. In addition the Inspector took account of the applicants economic and sustainable reasons:
(i) if a proportion of the open market housing were to be required to be affordable this would significantly reduce the capital receipt for this site which “would adversely affect [the Trusts] ability to undertake planned capital projects to improve healthcare facilities at the Hospital” (paragraph 18);
(ii) and that it is appropriate for the affordable housing on the site to be for key health workers and to be located adjacent to the hospital for reasons of sustainability and for the practical benefits it would provide for staff working unsocial hours.
25. In summary, the Inspector is saying that the Council’s definition of affordable housing and its policies towards securing affordable housing from residential development sites are in line with government guidance and policy. It is the role of the planning officer to ensure, through the policies, that an element of affordable housing is secured from such developments. Who benefits depends on whether the group you are dealing with, such as key workers, travellers, people with disabilities, fall within the definition of affordable housing. In this particular case, the nursing staff did because the applicant was able to demonstrate to the Inspector that nurses lacked the financial resources to rent or buy in the open market, and therefore the housing that was being provided met our policy requirements.
26. So for example, if a developer comes forward with a proposal for a residential development that includes an element of affordable housing for a group of people that are alleged to be unable to buy or rent in the open market, the developer has only to produce evidence to support the claim and the proposal will meet our policy. This is because our policy does not distinguish between different groups who are in need of affordable housing.
Recommendation
27 This decision highlights the problems associated with UDP policy H11 and its relevant paragraphs to combat any future cases of this kind. At present, the Council’s policy H11 and definition in paragraph 7.25 of the UDP on affordable housing accords with Government guidance.
28 The problem we have is that it does not enable use to distinguish between equally competing demands for affordable housing. As this case demonstrates, the equally competing demands being between those people on the council’s housing register and key workers (nurses). What is needed is a mechanism whereby equally competing demands can be ranked in some order of priority. This approach, however, must be based on research and data that identifies the level of demand/need between relevant groups. This could be done in two ways:
1 a wholesale review of the existing policy, which would include within the policy some, form of table that ranks equally competing demands. This could be done by either through the current review process of the UDP, which could take up to 2 years to adopt, or by a mini review of the affordable housing section of the UDP. 2. Adoption of Supplementary Planning Guidance; again based on research and data that distinguishes/ranks equally competing demands.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 109 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Conclusion
29 The weakness we have at present is that the desired outcome of the policy we seek is to provide accommodation primarily for those on the Council’s housing register. If a culture exists which perceives that the role of affordable housing policy is purely to meet the need to house those on our waiting list, this perception is incorrect.
30 The function of the policies is to identify the needs of a variety of groups so that applications can be determined against such policies. It has to be accepted that cases will arise where there will be equally competing demands for affordable housing on a particular site and that the ultimate recipient may not necessarily be those on the Council’s waiting list.
COMMENTS OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
31 The Housing Service recognises a wide range of housing needs in the borough and has adopted appropriate policy responses including Section 106 agreements for affordable housing. The housing needs identified in the Council's annual Housing Strategy Statement and the 1996 Needs survey includes affordable housing for homeless households and those living in overcrowded and/or unsatisfactory conditions; key worker accommodation; intermediate priced accommodation; shared ownership; supported housing; housing for single people; and the need for adaptation and repair to homes in both the rented and owner occupied sectors. All of these needs are addressed in the Housing Strategy Statement by an appropriate response from the Council in terms of provision and help and advice.
32 The Section 106 policy is a particularly effective and powerful way of providing affordable housing for those in extreme need and has therefore mainly been used for this purpose. Other housing needs, including key workers, are being tackled by the Council's Housing Service in different ways.
33 It is felt by the Housing Service that it would be helpful to have Supplementary Planning Guidance in relation to affordable housing. This would enable the Council to be clearer and more specific about a definition for affordable housing which could be updated on an annual basis as circumstances change. The guidance could address affordable housing across the range of needs and set down the Council's position much more clearly.
34 Whilst the provision of nurses accommodation on this site is felt to be useful it is limited in the following respects:
(a) Apart from a small addition, it was not new provision, it was just upgrading existing accommodation which could be seen as the hospital simply meeting its landlord responsibilities.
(b) The accommodation has a range of shared facilities which limits its use.
(c) One of the Council's housing aims is to achieve sustainable developments containing a mix of tenures which would not be achieved on this site. This policy aim is now likely to be included in the Spatial Development Strategy.’
LEGAL SERVICES COMMENTS
35. Incorporated in the report.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 110 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMENTS
36 The report indicates that the inspector has awarded costs against the Council, but these have not yet been quantified. Members are advised that there is no budget provision for such costs. The Council’s financial policy requires the Environment Committee to agree how the costs of any work will be funded before officers can take action.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Unitary Development Plan
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (Revised)
Circular 6/98 – Affordable Housing
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 111 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 112 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 113 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 114 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 115 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 116 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 117 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 118 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 119 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 120 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 121 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 122 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 123 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 124 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 125 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACTION PLAN ITEM 18
CONTACT OFFICERS : Viv Woodcock, Jean Palmer, Gavin Cooper TELEPHONE : 01895 250615/277980/277084
SUMMARY
This report provides a briefing for members of the Environment Committee on the work undertaken so far, and the action plan to ensure that services under the leadership of the Environment Committee are delivered within the framework of Equality as established by the Policy Committee of the Council. The report also sets out the Council’s approach to Equalities issues as endorsed by the Policy Committee on 29 June 2000 and provides Members of the Environment Committee with a progress report of action taken to support the implementation of the work programme. The legal comments at the end of the report clarify the range of statutory responsibilities that Councils’ now have in relation to Equalities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Environment Committee
1. endorses the work of the Environmental Services Group on equalities issues and
2. reconfirms the Committee’s commitment to delivering service in an equitable manner.
INFORMATION
1. On 29 June 2000 the Policy Committee considered the Council’s response to the Macpherson Report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Policy committee agreed that
· the Council’s response to the Macpherson report be agreed, including reaching Level Two of the standards set out by Commission for Racial Equality by 31 March 2001 · the race equalities work programme previously distributed to members be endorsed, with progress reported to this committee twice a year. · the approach adopted to race equalities be repeated for other aspects of the equalities agenda once lessons are learned from the current exercise.
2. A resume of the standards the Council is required to meet to reach Level Two of the Commission for Racial Equality’s standards is set out in appendix A together with the action plan being managed by the Environmental Services Group.
3. A further report was submitted to the Policy Committee on 22 March 2001, which brought members of that committee up to date with progress on the equalities agenda. It also informed Members that a draft Equalities Policy for the Council had been circulated to community groups for comment. The proposal is to the final version of this policy to be endorsed by the Policy Committee in June.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 126 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Vision and aim of the Environment Committee and Environmental Services Group
4. The vision and aim of the Environment Committee was agreed at your meeting of this Committee on 10th October 2000. It is to: Work in partnership with the local people, other agencies, businesses and our staff to protect, enhance, and influence our local environment to create a higher and sustainable quality of life for people in Hillingdon.
5. We want the people of Hillingdon to live and work in safety and good health. We are here to deliver a clean and attractive environment. The heart of our work will be the fair, efficient and transparent delivery of services, especially within the regulatory function. Our key aim is to establish a culture within our service Group that recognises the central importance of equality to service delivery and people management. We will work to ensure that no section of the community is disadvantaged through services being inaccessible or inappropriate.
Key Equalities Objectives of the Environmental Services Group 2001/04
By March 2003, we will have achieved the following outcomes:-
· EQUAL ACCESS TO SERVICES - Our services will be accessible to all members of the community. They will be designed and delivered in ways which recognise the specific needs of our community · FOCUS ON COMBATING RACISM - Environmental Services will work to combat racism in both Hillingdon Council and the wider community through the implementation of campaigns and initiatives designed to drive out racism and implement the findings of the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence. · IMPROVING SERVICES FOR ALL - Equality will be an integral aspect of our approach to Best Value and service improvement, as well as a critical success factor in our aim to drive up performance within the services. · EMPLOYMENT (RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION) - Our staff will feel they work in a safe and fair environment. They will believe the unique contribution each makes is valued. Our workforce at all levels will reflect the diversity of the local community. · DEVELOPING AND RETAINING STAFF - Staff will receive effective development and training to help them perform well and to progress through the organisation, delivering improved services and customer relationships. Training and development needs will be identified through the introduction of the Performance and Development Review Scheme. All staff will be well informed on equality, the implications for service design and delivery, and their own personal responsibility for equality.
Mechanisms for Monitoring and Reviewing our Progress
6. Within the four-year timeline for this action plan, there will be an annual review to assess progress and identify key actions for the year ahead. The review will include consultation with key stakeholders, including the Connecting Communities project, and will be reported to Committee annually.
7. During 2001/02 the plan will be developed and will be monitored by regular reports to the Environmental Services Group Management Team. These reports will be prepared and presented by the Making a Difference Team in the Environmental Services Group.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 127 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Equality Action Plan for Environmental Services during 2001/02
Outlined below are key equalities outcomes, actions and performance indicators
EQUAL ACCESS TO SERVICES
ACTIONS
· Establish a written policy on racial equality for individual service delivery areas
· All services to develop and deliver local equality action plans with targets around service delivery
· Establish ethnic monitoring of the delivery of services
· Provide appropriate translation and interpreting services
KEY INDICATORS
· % perception rating of our services given by women, ethnic minority customers, and customers with disabilities
· Local Equality Action Plans in place by 01/11/01
FOCUS ON COMBATING RACISM
ACTIONS
· Establish mechanisms for responding to racial harassment, and racial attacks, supporting victims and removing racist graffiti.
· Set up mechanisms to ensure that planning applications, licensing and other control and planning processes take place within a context that is favours community development, and takes account of ethnic minority needs.
· Address Environmental Services specific issues arising from the MacPherson Report relating to: (a) % of householder and commercial planning applications by ethnicity; (b) provision of training in community languages and development of interpretation services. (c) staff training to be alert to potential racist motivation in issues such as neighbour disputes, planning applications, complaints, etc.
KEY INDICATORS
· % racial incidents recorded
· Employment Tribunal applications logged on race grounds and % found against the Council
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 128 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS IMPROVING SERVICES FOR ALL
ACTIONS
· Equalities to be fully integrated into Best Value reviews with specific assessment of the way in which services impact on sections of the community, and set targets to redress disparities in the provision of services to those that are socially, economically or geographically disadvantaged.
KEY INDICATORS
· Stakeholder feedback in the evaluation of the continuous improvement agenda.
EMPLOYMENT (RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION)
ACTIONS
· Develop training for managers involved in recruitment and selection to ensure equality issues are addressed.
· Target recruitment to encourage ethnic minority applicants in areas where they are underrepresented.
· Fair implementation of restructuring with regular communication to staff through team briefings and Environmental Services “Green House”.
· Inform new and existing staff of equality policy statement
KEY INDICATORS
· % difference between proportions of workforce in various groups and the population of Hillingdon
· Number of managers given specific equalities training
· % women staff as senior managers and % women returning from maternity leave
DEVELOPING AND RETAINING STAFF
ACTIONS
· Incorporate racial equality principles into PADA training plans for all staff
· All staff to be consulted on draft equlities action plan
KEY INDICTAORS
· % of staff receiving training broken down by ethnicity
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 129 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Progress In Environmental Services Group on the items reported to Policy Committee in March 2001
(1) Officer organisation: The Chief Executive has set up a senior officer team, under the Corporate Director Education, to lead on the race equalities agenda across the Council, widening this out to include other equalities areas as soon as practicable. In addition, each Group has identified a senior officer to lead on Equalities for the Group and work programmes have been drawn up for the corporate team and Group teams respectively to ensure that Commission for Racial Equality’s targets are met. Viv Woodcock is the lead officer on Equality for the Environmental Services Group, and a small team of staff has been developed to ensure the work on equal opportunity, organisation development and training is completed.
(2) Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] Level Two. The officers’ view is that the Council has broadly reached Level Two of the CRE Standards by 31 March 2001. More progress has been made in some areas. The Environmental Services Group carried out an audit against the standards, and has drawn up an action plan to meet the gaps. Advice from the Council’s Race Equality Advisor is that this is more than adequate to meet Level Two of the standard.
(3) Corporate Racial Harassment Policy and Procedures document has now been fully revised and is available on the Intranet. Hillingdon is believed to be one of only two London Boroughs, which has developed such a corporate policy rather than leaving it to individual services. Environmental Services Group has adopted the principle and practice recommended in this document.
(4) A draft Equalities Policy for the Council, which provides a necessary framework for the delivery of equalities objectives has been developed by officers in the Chief Executive's’ Office. The Equalities Policy is clearly a cornerstone for widening the Council’s work on equalities to meet legislative and other requirements placed on the Council. Although the Macpherson Report and the Race Relations Amendment Act placed an immediate emphasis on race issues, it is important that the Council extends its activities to other aspects of the equalities agenda and the Chief Executive is particularly concerned that disability receives more attention in the coming year. Environmental Services Group has established a small team of staff who are keen to promote equal opportunity, and this team is reviewing the impact of this new policy on service design and delivery.
(5) Reporting centres for incidents of racial harassment: The under reporting of incidents of racial harassment has been identified as a key problem in all major national reports on racial harassment and was again highlighted by the Macpherson Report. As with other areas, Hillingdon is affected by under reporting. The concept Reporting Centres at places other than police stations was endorsed by the Macpherson Report and is supported by the Metropolitan Police. A pilot of three reporting centres – at the Hillingdon Race Equality Council, the Hillingdon Law Centre and the Bell Farm Church - has been established in Hillingdon to give practical experience before the pilot is extended. Environmental Services Group offered Harlington Road Deport as a site of one of the Reporting Centres. Unfortunately this was not adopted.
(6) Connecting Communities: The Council has won £180,000 in grant funding from the Home Office to assist capacity building within the black and minority ethnic communities in Hillingdon. This was the largest of the grants allocated in London by the Home Office for this project. The contract with the Home Office was signed in February 2000 and the first funding installment received by the Council. A borough wide consultation exercise with black and minority ethnic residents will be organised and led by De Montford University (Leicester) which is expected to begin with a meeting of representatives from existing black and minority ethnic voluntary groups.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 130 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS An event to launch the exercise in July 20d1 is being planned. Officers in Environmental Services Group look forward to this consultation, and are keen to ensure that views on the environment and its impact are identified as part of the exercise.
(7) Translation and Interpretation: The Council’s Communications Team has prepared guidelines for use of the Council’s Translation and Interpretation Service. The service will be organised, disciplined and widely promoted to ensure people have access to the information they need. The Service will need to continue to develop if further progress in achieving CRE standards is to be achieved. The Environmental Services Group makes use of the Translation and Interpretation Service when the need arises to ensure that members of the public have equal access to services provided by the Group
(8) Training: £10, 000 has been identified from corporate funding for staff training in the new racial harassment policies and to respond to complaints of racial harassment.. In Environmental Services Group a comprehensive training needs analysis is being undertaken as part of the Introduction of the Performance and Development Review Scheme. Training and development opportunities will be provided where gaps in skills and understanding are identified, to ensure services are designed and delivered within the framework of equality adopted by the Council.
(9) Partnership and team working are also developing between the different agencies involved. There is a strong and developing relationship between the Council, the Police and Hillingdon Race Equality Council. The Head of Hillingdon REC is making a valuable contribution to the work of the Council’s Corporate Race and Equality Team.
LEGAL COMMENTS
8. The Council's equalities agenda is underpinned by a raft of legislation which includes:
- The Human Rights Act 1998 - The Sex Discrimination Acts 1975 and 1986 - The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000
9. The Race Relations Amendment Act is now in force. The main object of the Act is to make it unlawful for a public authority [which includes central government, local authorities and the police],to discriminate directly or indirectly in carrying out any of its functions. The Act also imposes a new statutory duty on a public authority in the carrying out of its functions to eliminate discrimination and promote race equality and good race relations. This duty will be set out in detail in Regulations and Codes of Practice and will be enforceable in the first instance by the Commission for Racial Equality and ultimately, by the Civil Courts.
FINANCIAL COMMENTS
10. There are no resource implications arising from this report. Any financial implications can be contained within existing resources.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Report of Policy Committee 29 June 2000 Report into the Death of Stephen Lawrence Report to Social Justice Sub Committee 23 March 1999 Report to Racial Harassment Forum 24 May 1999
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 131 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 132 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 133 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 134 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 135 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 136 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 137 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 138 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 139 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 140 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 141 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS INTERIM LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2002/2003 ITEM 19
CONTACT OFFICER: Chandra Raval TELEPHONE: 01895 277206
SUMMARY
Under the new arrangements for London’s government, Hillingdon has to submit each year a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and a Borough Spending Plan (BSP) to the Greater London Authority. Together, these will present Hillingdon’s plan for the development of transport facilities in the Borough.
For 2002/03, the LIP is an interim version as the Mayor’s Transport Strategy has not yet been finalised. The current year’s BSP document is Hillingdon’s bid for grant in respect of capital expenditure in 2002/03.
This report sets out the basis of the Council’s current year submission. It also recommends a list of schemes which are the Council’s priorities for Transport Capital infra-structure investment in the next financial year. A copy of the draft documents has been sent to Members on this Committee and the Transportation Sub-Committee. A copy is also on deposit in party offices.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Committee approves: (a) the draft Interim Local Implementation Plan (b) the draft Borough Spending Plan (c) the draft Transport Capital Programme and the list of schemes to be submitted as the Council’s bid within the Interim Local Implementation Plan.
2. That the Committee authorises officers to make detailed adjustments as necessary when finalising the draft documents.
INFORMATION
1 In the financial year 2002/03, London Boroughs are required to submit to the Greater London Authority their Interim Local Implementation Plans (ILIPs). These replace the Interim Transport Plans submitted in the previous two years to the Government Office for London and the annual Transport Policies and Programme documents which preceded them.
2 In future years, Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) will be statutory submissions and will be required to conform to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. As this is still in draft form, Boroughs are this year being asked to submit an interim version of their LIPs. From July 2002, the LIP will become a statutory document, to include bids over five years for funding conforming to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This will be a major change in the way the Council prepares transport plans, works with partners / stakeholders and seeks funds. The Council will bid for grants and implement schemes over the full period.
3 This year’s ILIP must be submitted to Transport for London (TfL) by 31st July and will essentially contain the Council’s policies and strategies on transport, in line with the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy. It will enlarge upon those in
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 142 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP), a progress report on schemes carried out from the Capital Programme for the last two financial years, the Council’s medium and long term transportation programme and the bid for 2002/2003.
4 The ILIP lays emphasis on recent legislation and the Government’s White Papers on Transport, Traffic Reduction etc. In future years the emphasis will shift more to package bids and to pan regional packages across the Capital. In the preparation of the future LIPs, the Borough will emphasise its individual concerns and priorities for an integrated transport strategy both locally and across the Capital. The Borough will have a major role to play in implementing and delivering locally the Mayor’s Transport Strategy for London.
5 Following this Committee meeting, it is intended to circulate the draft document for consultation. It is proposed to carry out consultation on the draft ILIP during June and July, prior to finalising it and submitting it to TfL by the 31st July 2001. Consultation on the ILIP is not obligatory on the Borough for this year but consultation with key stakeholders will still be carried out, as in previous years. This upholds the Council’s commitment to consultation and gives a continuity in practice as, in later years, it will be a statutory requirement for the Borough to consult with stakeholders over the LIP.
6 This year’s submission again highlights the links between Transport and Health issues. A working group of Council Officers and representatives of Hillingdon Hospital / Health Care Groups produced a paper, the contents of which are again being incorporated into the ILIP.
7 The final version of the ILIP and the BSP will be submitted to TfL and copies will be sent to all Hillingdon’s libraries and elected Members. For the purposes of presentation to Committee a copy of the latest draft has been sent to Members of this Committee and Members of the Transportation Sub-Committee (under separate cover). A copy has also been deposited in each party office.
THE BID FOR 2002/2003
8 In the draft document are tables setting out the Council’s intended Trans-port Capital Programme. The categories broadly comply with those for which funding is made available. The presentation format is consistent with TfL’s approach on assessing bids and awarding funding. There is greater emphasis on bids as a package of measures supporting both the Mayor’s and Council’s policies, rather than as separate and perhaps unconnected bids within the individual categories. It is anticipated that the Borough’s ILIP will be considered by the Mayor and the bid allocation determined by TfL.
9 Members will note that, where possible, priorities have been attached to schemes within the individual categories but not necessarily to the complete list. This makes the task easier and recognises that funds are limited and that not all schemes will receive an allocation. Priorities are put forward for the Committee's endorsement or amendment as members consider necessary. The Committee may wish to advise on additional schemes that they would like incorporated in the final document.
10 The list of bids has been compiled to reflect the Council’s overall priorities and is set out in Appendix A. The list corresponds, in financial terms, to the likely level of allocation, in line with settlements for 2001/02. The Committee is asked to consider this list for approval or amendment. The agreed list will be included in the final ILIP and BSP submissions as Hillingdon’s bid for funds in 2002/03.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 143 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 11 The financial settlement will be known in December 2001 and will be reported back to Committee in March 2002. The list of schemes included in the bids does not unduly commit the Council at this stage, as a final decision on which schemes to implement or progress can be made by Transportation Sub-Committee in the light of the TfL settlement. Alternative schemes can be substituted, provided that they are of a similar nature and provide similar rates of return (e.g. accident savings).
SUBMISSIONS IN LATER YEARS
12 TfL will, in later years, require three other documents to be submitted in conjunction with LIPs and BSPs. These are · Road Safety Plan · Parking and Enforcement Plan · Street Maintenance Plan.
13 TfL will soon require a number of strategic issues to form part of future LIPs/BSPs, including the items outlined here. The Authority is committed to carry out a Transportation Strategy, as especially work on the parking Strategy is concluded for the time being. ( see elsewhere on the Agenda). There is considerable need in forming the Borough’s Transport Strategy around the future requirements of LIPS and BSPs.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
14 None.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
15 At the time of compiling the committee agenda and writing these comments, the draft ILIP 2002/03 documents were not available. The documents form the basis of the Council’s bid for capital resources for a range of transportation related matters, based upon the Council’s and the Mayor’s priorities. The settlement, when it is announced towards the end of this financial year, will form part of the Council’s and Environment Committee’s Capital Programme for 2002/03.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Interim Local Implementation Plan / Borough Spending Plan - Guidance for 2002/03 Plans (Issued by Transport for London on 30th April 2001).
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 144 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS DRAFT INTERIM PARKING STRATEGY CONSULTATION RESPONSES ITEM 20
CONTACT OFFICER: Chandra Raval TELEPHONE: 01895-277206
SUMMARY
A special meeting of the Environment Committee on 14 November 2000 looked at all aspects of parking and, in particular, considered the draft Interim Parking Strategy developed during the year. This development process had included extensive structured consultation with residents groups and local business stakeholders. The resulting version of the draft Strategy was approved by the Committee for full public consultation.
This full consultation was carried out earlier in the year and this report informs the Committee of the findings. A report on the process subsequently appeared in “Hillingdon People” and any further feedback at that stage has been incorporated in this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Committee notes the report.
2. That the Committee approves the final version of the draft Interim Parking Strategy.
INFORMATION
1 The current draft version of the Interim Parking Strategy was developed during 2000. During the process, there was extensive consultation with residents’ groups and the local business community. This involved a series of structured workshops, some of which were reserved for Councillors to consider the feedback from the public workshops.
2 The outcome of this structured consultation process was reported to the special meeting of the Committee on 14 November 2000. At this meeting, the draft version of the Strategy was approved for further consultation with the public.
3 The first stage of this general consultation was carried out during January and February of this year. Leaflets were distributed to a wider range of residents’ and business organisations and the material was put on to the Council’s website. A copy of the consultation document is reproduced in Appendix 1.
4 The process was completed by publishing the same material in the spring issue of “Hillingdon People”. This ensured that the debate was carried into every household in the Borough and that everyone had the opportunity to contribute.
5 The Committee is asked to take account of the results of the consultation, officers’ comments on individual observations and the suggested amendments to the draft Interim Parking Strategy. In the light of this feedback, the Committee is requested to approve a final version of the Interim Parking Strategy.
6 The number of consultation leaflets distributed was approximately 3,000. The total number included many sets of leaflets for residents’ associations and other local organisations, so that the
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 145 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS actual total penetration depended on the effectiveness of distribution within these bodies. 105 responses were received, about 3% of the original total sent out.
7 The breakdown of these responses in relation to the questions asked is shown in Appendix 2 and comments made by respondents are tabulated in Appendix 3. The list of the consultees in the latest phase of consultations is shown in Appendix 4.
8 Where appropriate, officers’ preliminary observations on the comments made are indicated in the table constituting Appendix 3. The table also shows suggested changes which could be made to the draft Interim Parking Strategy. Members’ approval is sought to the changes and the resulting final version of the Strategy.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9 None.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
10 The recommendations have no financial implications.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Draft Interim Parking Strategy, November 2000.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 146 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 147 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 148 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 149 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 150 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 151 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 152 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 153 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 154 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 155 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 156 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 157 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 158 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 159 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ENHANCEMENT OF THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT SERVICE ITEM 21
CONTACT OFFICER: Doug Williamson Salim Burns TELEPHONE: 01895 250943 01895 277776 SUMMARY
The report reviews the progress that has been made in increasing the Council’s parking enforcement resources in the past six months.
RECOMMENDATION
That it is noted that the enhancement of the Parking Enforcement Service is progressing satisfactorily.
INFORMATION
Background
1 At your meeting on 14 November 2000 you considered a report on the Review of the Parking Enforcement Service. The report reflected on the need to bring the service into line with the objectives of the Interim Parking Strategy and the requirement to tailor parking control measures to meet overall transport policies. It was recognised that the level of enforcement resources was too low to meet the Council’s objectives and that a significant increase in the team of Parking Attendants was required.
2 Your committee approved the incremental increase in the parking enforcement team of up to 100 percent in the following year, with the need to submit a progress report for your consideration after six months.
Progress Report
3 To potentially double the current team of 18 Parking Attendant Supervisors/ Officers in 12 months is a significant undertaking and in some respects is akin to setting up many aspects of the service from scratch. The principal factors that need to be addressed include recruitment, training, equipment, deployment and accommodation. a) Recruitment
4 The first round of recruitment has been undertaken and, subject to personnel procedures being successfully completed, it is anticipated that six new Parking Attendants will be shortly appointed. It is anticipated that the additional resources will be deployed in July.
5 The next round of recruitment has commenced and it is hoped that it will be possible to appoint a further six more staff in early October.
6 Subject to it being justified, a third round of recruitment will follow with the final contingent of staff commencing enforcement duties in January 2002.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 160 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS b) Training
7 It is expected that the majority of recruits will be inexperienced in parking enforcement and will have to undergo a thorough training programme to prepare them for their duties. It is also proposed to provide refresher training for the existing staff to ensure that a consistent standard of enforcement is achieved, as well as addressing recent changes in parking legislation. A specialist in this field will provide the training courses. c) Equipment
8 It was also agreed at your meeting last year that there was a pressing need to replace the existing ticket issuing equipment and the radio control system.
9 New hand-held computer ticket issuing machines are currently being evaluated. The views of other local authorities currently using these machines are being sought regarding the suitability and reliability of the equipment, prior to undertaking in-house field trials. In view of the need to thoroughly research the suitability of the proposed ticket issuing equipment before making a commitment to purchase, and taking in to account the likely purchase time for the new units, it is expected that any additional equipment required will be rented in the first instance.
10 The coverage of the former radio system was patchy and did not facilitate operations. Trials have been undertaken to test a new aerial location and this has successfully shown that reliable and widespread communications can be achieved throughout the borough. New radio handsets are being purchased to replace the former redundant equipment and a new radio communications system will be established shortly. d) Deployment of Resources and Accommodation
11 At present the existing enforcement is mainly carried out by mobile patrols, operating from the base at Harlington Road Depot. The future aim, where practical, is to limit the number of mobile patrols in favour of more foot patrols, dedicated to the main enforcement areas. In the first phase of the expansion of the service it is unlikely that the fairly limited number of new recruits would facilitate a major change in the current method of deployment. However, as resources continue to increase it is the intention to move towards more patrolling on foot.
12 The present accommodation for the parking enforcement staff at Harlington Road depot will be adequate for the first intake of new staff. Subsequently the accommodation will need to be expanded to cater for the higher numbers of personnel envisaged. In order to minimise travelling time by the staff when taking rest and meal breaks suitable additional premises are also being sought in the northern area of the borough, where it is proposed to establish a satellite base.
Related Matters
13 With the expansion of the Parking Attendant workforce there will be an increase in the number of parking tickets issued. The current contract requires that 60,000 parking tickets be issued per annum. Prior to the deployment of the additional resource it is difficult to precisely gauge the impact this will have on the issue of Penalty Charge Notices. However, it is anticipated that the increase in the issue of parking tickets may be in the region of between 10,000 and 20,000 in the current financial year.
14 Such an increase in ticketing of parking contraventions will lead to a corresponding increase in the number of appeals and payments being processed by the Council’s staff.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 161 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Consideration is currently being given to also increasing these staff to deal with the additional workload.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
15 The recommendation to note the report has no financial implications.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
16 No legal comments.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
The report to the Environment Committee on 14 November 2000 entitled Review of Parking Enforcement Service.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 162 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS HILLINGDONS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE LONDON LOW EMISSION ZONE ITEM 22 FEASIBILITY STUDY
CONTACT OFFICER: Val Beale/Colin Cobbing TELEPHONE: 01895 250155
SUMMARY
Having declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), Hillingdon is now required to draw up an Action Plan with measures to improve local air quality. A Low Emissions Zone is a measure that studies have indicated could secure air quality improvements. This report seeks members approval to participate, and make financial commitment to, the London Low Emission Zone feasibility study. If the conclusion of the study is positive it will feature as part of Hillingdon’s Air Quality Action Plan for the improvement of air quality.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is RECOMMENDED that the Committee:
Support Hillingdon’s participation in the London Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study.
INFORMATION
Background
1. London boroughs and the GLA have a statutory responsibility to clean up the capital’s air. One of the options for the improvement of air quality to be considered by local authorities, and one which previous research studies has indicated will secure air quality improvements, is the restriction of certain classes of vehicles within their boundaries. To avoid extensive individual costs to each borough and also to ensure a regional approach, the ALG,GLA and the London boroughs are undertaking a joint feasibility study to look into the viability of setting a low emission zone (LEZ) in the capital. It is thought that it will apply to commercial vehicles such as taxis, buses, coaches and lorries. This partnership approach to the study will be required by the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, due for release for consultation in June. If enforced, the zone would hopefully encourage the owners of commercial vehicles to clean up their emissions or else face a ban from the designated area. Grants are available from government agencies to facilitate the clean-up process. If the conclusions from the study are positive for an LEZ scheme in London it will feature in Hillingdon’s Air Quality Action Plan for the improvement of air quality.
The London Low Emission Zone Two Phased Feasibility Study
Phase 1
2. This first part of the study was designed to be a compilation of all the key issues that will need to be addressed in order to achieve a comprehensive, balanced study into the potential introduction of a low emission zone in London. Phase 1 has now been completed and a commitment from all the stake-holders in the feasibility study is required in order to proceed to the second phase. Officer time commitment from the individual boroughs has already been given to the study and an officer from Hillingdon is a member of the Low Emission Zone Steering Group and will also be a member of the LEZ
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 163 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Modelling sub-group. One of the conclusions from the Phase 1 study is the need to secure financial commitment from all the stake-holders, the level of commitment asked for from the boroughs is likely to be £3,000 per borough (to be confirmed by ALG/GLA).
Phase 2 3. The key issues to be resolved in this stage are: a) Criteria for the Scheme This will be the geographical extent, the types of vehicles to be banned, the identification of permitted vehicles and the timing of the scheme. Initial indications suggest that the geographical extents to be considered will include i) the Central London proposed congestion charging zone, ii) the north/south circular, iii) Heathrow Airport and iv) the whole of the area contained within the M25. b) Environmental benefits/dis-benefits of the scheme This will ensure that the full benefits and /or dis-benefits of the scheme are taken into account for example the effect on greenhouse gas emissions. c) Social and Economic Impact This will ensure a balanced study taking into account not only the primary costs of implementing an LEZ in London but also any secondary socio-economic costs and an estimation of their impacts. d) Implementation and Enforcement Different enforcement methods will be explored plus the costs and funding of any scheme. It will also take into account the legal aspects of implementing a zone. e) Involvement of Stake-holders All of the Phase 2 study will be discussed via a Consultation Forum that will ensure input from all potential stake-holders. This will include the West London Transport Forum, Heathrow Area Transport Forum, the Freight Transporters Association as well as businesses and fleet operators.
4. It is currently anticipated that the conclusions from the Phase 2 study will be available by Spring 2002. This will either give the best geographical option/s for an LEZ for the reduction in air pollution taking all other factors into account or conclude that the introduction of an LEZ is in fact not feasible. If the conclusion is positive a political decision will then be needed to take an LEZ forward and will then feature as a key component of boroughs Air Quality Action Plans to improve air quality.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5. Funding is required for the Stage 2 phase of this study. A financial commitment of £3,000 (to be confirmed by the ALG / GLA) will be asked from each London Borough. Funding for this will be pursued via Hillingdon’s Interim Local Implementation Plan (ILIP) transportation bid for 2002/03, and through a transportation bid via the West London Transport Strategy Group. However, should these bids be unsuccessful, this project will be funded from the Supplementary Credit Approval recently announced by central government for air quality monitoring and modelling work in 2001/02.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 164 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6. When an authority has designated an Air Quality Management Area, it is required under section 84(2) of the Environment Act 1995, to draw up an action plan setting out what it intends to do to improve local air quality in pursuit of the Governments air quality objectives. A Low Emissions Zone is a measure that previous studies have indicated could secure air quality improvements. The Mayors Air Quality Strategy will expect all London boroughs wishing to explore the potential of a Low Emissions Zone to do so via this joint study.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
London Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study Phase 1 Papers
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 165 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS CONTAMINATED LAND INSPECTION STRATEGY ITEM 23
CONTACT OFFICER : Peggy Law TELEPHONE NUMBER : 01895 277403
SUMMARY
This report summarises responses received following consultation of the draft contaminated land inspection strategy.
The report also sets out officers’ responses to the comments received and summarises the proposed amendments to the draft.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee:
1. Endorses the actions proposed to amend the draft contaminated land inspection strategy
2. Endorses the formal publication and adoption of the strategy
3. Requires officers to report back to this Committee on the progress of the implementation of the contaminated land strategy
INFORMATION
Consultations Process
1. Following the endorsement of the draft contaminated land inspection strategy at the Committee of 20 March 2001, a consultation process on the strategy was carried out. This involved posting the draft strategy on the web site and making the document available in all local libraries. In addition, the draft strategy was sent to a number of statutory consultees as follows:
· English Nature · English Heritage · Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food · Food Standards Agency · English Partnerships · Environment Agency
2. A list was drawn up of other Authorities, voluntary organisations and private companies who would have an interest in contaminated land matters. This included Authorities such as the Hillingdon Health Authority, the Water Companies and neighbouring Local Authorities. Voluntary organisations such as the London Wildlife Trust and the Hillingdon Natural History Society were also contacted. Private companies who have an interest in contaminated land from owning or redeveloping contaminated land in Hillingdon such as British Airways and the Stockley Park Consortium were also contacted. For the non-statutory consultees the executive summary of the draft contaminated land strategy was forwarded. Reference was made in the letter to the availability for their assessment of the strategy on the Council’s website. Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 166 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Responses to the consultation
3. The comments received were positive and constructive. All statutory consultees have given detailed considerations to the draft strategy and this is reflected in their responses. The responses and proposed amendments have been tabulated and presented in the Appendix at the end of this report. Some minor amendments have also been incorporated following officers’ comments from Planning Services.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
4. None
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
5. The recommendations have no direct financial implications.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
DETR Circular 02/2000 on the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part 11A (contaminated land)
Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy (draft)
Written replies to the Environmental Protection Unit regarding the consultation on the draft contaminated land strategy approved by the committee of 20.3.2001
Report - Summary of Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy (draft). Environment Committee of 20.3.2001
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 167 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS APPENDIX
The following table shows the comments of external consultees and proposed amendments to the Draft Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy
Consultee Comments Action English To embrace all of the areas of These areas will not be identified as Nature wildlife interest throughout the sites in the strategy, but a general policy Borough such as minor for considering their wildlife value when ditches, railway embankments investigating potential contamination will and other such areas which be included in the document, as well as may support rare or uncommon an emphasis on the importance of plants and animals, and act as preserving and creating such “green corridors” to allow environments where possible. species migration. (Nature Conservation in Hillingdon: Ecology Book 7 will be used to identify important green corridors in the Borough). (Include in 2.4, Nature Conservation Areas and include a policy in chapter 5) Consider the existing nature A general policy of maintaining the conservation interests of diversity of such habitats, where contaminated sites, which may reasonable/possible when remediation have been colonised over a action is taken will be included in the long period of time by flora and strategy. Actions on investigating and fauna creating rich and diverse remediating contaminated land to take habitats supporting a nature conservation value of site into remarkable variety of wildlife, account (amend chapter 5) when deciding on remedial measures. Nature conservation as a valid A general policy for maintaining/creating end use for contaminated sites, such sites based on the UDP where especially for sites, which have possible. (Include in 5.11) characteristics that make them (Planning Policy Guidance 9: Nature difficult and/or expensive to Conservation and Reclamation of reclaim for agriculture or Damaged Land for nature Conservation development. (1996) will be used for guidance). Ministry of Include the Food Standards Add FSA to Boxes 4.1 and 4.2 Agriculture, Agency (FSA) as a source of Fisheries & information on identifying the Food location of potential receptors and sources. (MAFF)
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 168 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Make sure the relevant ICRCL Make clear in the relevant paragraph values are used. Values for and Box (4.4 and 4.6, respectively) the arsenic levels in different types existence of different ICRCL/other of agricultural land are given, values based to land use, and although they are not the emphasise the significance of land use published values. when determining safe levels. (Soil code for Good Agricultural Practice will be used for guidance with respect to acceptable levels of contamination in agricultural soils). Advice that it would not be Keep this in mind when establishing possible to establish pollution pollution linkages, although no specific linkage for agricultural land by mention will be made in the strategy prediction of plant or animal document. uptake from soil data, and will be necessary to obtain specific information relating to the receptor under investigation. Advice to use Agricultural Land Mention document in Box 4.2, Classification surveys to Information Sources. indicate possible contaminated land/ problem areas in the Borough (not as evidence for the existence of pollution linkages. English Protected Property: the Change as indicated using the Heritage designation of conservation appropriate wording in section 2.5 of the areas is undertaken to strategy document. recognise areas of special architectural or historic interest, rather than “historical heritage” Listed buildings are of special Make the appropriate corrections/ architectural or historic interest distinctions for section 2.5. as by the SoS for the Department of Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), under section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the distinction should be made from the Council’s own non- statutory list of locally listed buildings. Ancient Monuments are also scheduled by the DCMS on the advice of English heritage. Include listed buildings Amend Box 4.1 as recommended. alongside scheduled ancient monuments in Box 4.1.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 169 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS London Consider the value of See response to similar Wildlife “brownfield” or “wasteland” for recommendation from English Nature. Trust providing people with contact with nature in an urban landscape. Carrying out appropriate remediation without destroying the naturally occurring ecology. Letter cites Wandle Meadow Mention Wasteland Habitat Action Plan Wildlife Park in Merton which in strategy and include further used a derelict land grant to comments on available grants after convert a sewage works into a consulting the Planning Department. nature site. Also mentioned is the Wasteland Habitat Action Plan which seeks to raise awareness of wasteland habitats in Greater London. Three Section 2.6 and 2.7 appear to No action Valleys be comprehensive with regard Water to groundwater resources and (Vivendi hydrogeology. Water R & D Pollution Risk Find out more about R&D methodology Partnership) assessment methodology for and Waterwatch, but no change to surface and groundwater Strategy document. Liase with Vivendi abstractions developed by Water / Three Valleys Water on site Vivendi and would like to specific projects. discuss project further. Waterwatch developed to review impact of present land use on boreholes operated by Three valleys Water. Vivendi have listed the Use information in strategy and discuss catchment areas in Hillingdon with Vivendi/Three Valleys Water. from which their boreholes draw water and offered information. Request for information on No action on strategy but discussions to contaminated as identified and be held as above. the council’s methodology to prepare the contaminated land register in Hillingdon. Thames Advises amendment to Box 1.1 Amend when Water Act in force. Water of the strategy due to change in definition (b) due to forthcoming Water Act Advises addition to subsection To be added. 1.4 regarding PPG23 revisions Request to modify chart on Possible minor change. page 5 of the strategy
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 170 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Comment on Box 2.1, Potential Slight changes to list but sewage and Sources of Contamination. sludge disposal works to remain on list. Request that list is changed, i.e. sewage works, water works, pumping works and sludge disposal works etc taken out Request to add R&D To be included. Publication 20 on the derivation remedial targets for soil and groundwater to protect water resources from Agency into Box 4.6 Minor typographical Revise. amendments commented on. Food No specific comments but FSA No specific changes to strategy other Standard confirmed they are available to than mention the offer of site specific Agency, advise on any potential food advice from the FSA. FSA safety aspects of cases of contaminated land that may be identified as a result of the development and implementation of the strategy. Hillingdon Confirmed that the HHA will be No changes to strategy. Work with the Health required to work with the HHA envisaged on site specific health Authority Environmental Protection Unit impacts of strategy envisaged. HAA on assessing health impacts Possibility of information exchange. within the strategy. Interested in sharing information. Environment Request for amendment of Box To be amended. Agency 3.1, Point 3 to include major aquifers. Confirmed Agency has 2 useful No changes to strategy. Documents and documents on aquifer Information to be requested. characteristics titled R&D Publications 8 and 6. Also draws Council’s attention to geological and hydrogeological maps. Request for addition to Box Addition to be inserted as requested 4.5, Obstacles to speedy ‘The Council may not be the enforcing resolution of issues. Authority and detailed discussion with the Environment Agency may be necessary’.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 171 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4. Change requested for Box Amendment to Box 4.6 as requested. 4.6 to advise use of Agency’s Mention memorandum of tiered risk methodology for understanding. controlled waters. Prior to designation of special sites detailed discussions with Agency required as per memorandum of understanding (Agency/LAs/DETR) Provision of information to the To be considered as an extra appendix. Agency mentioned and Agency suggest adding exchange of information sheets as appendix. In section 5.4 the Agency To be amended. requests that it is inserted that ‘prior to deciding whether the land is a special site discussions with the Agency are required’. The Agency indicate that they To consult the Agency on revisions. wish to be consulted on the Insert this statement in strategy, chapter revisions of the strategy. The 7 and change name of Agency Office. Agency office for Hillingdon is the North-East area.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 172 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS SALE OF TOBACCO AND OTHER AGE RESTRICTED GOODS ITEM 24 PROGRAMME OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION
CONTACT OFFICER : Sue Pollitt TELEPHONE : 01895 277425
SUMMARY
This report describes the actions that can be included in a programme of enforcement under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (Section 7)-ie controlling the sale of cigarettes to children under the age of 16. It also seeks to expand test purchasing activities to other areas of age restricted goods.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Officers of the Trading Standards Service continue to respond to complaints concerning the sale of tobacco to young persons.
2. That Officers of the Trading Standards Service continue with the programme of test purchasing cigarettes using young people, in accordance with Home Office guidelines, which was introduced in 1999.
3. That Officers of the Trading Standards Service expand this programme of test purchasing to include other age-restricted goods such as fireworks, videos and cigarette lighter refills, and any other goods whose supply may be age-restricted by legislation which the Trading Standards Authority has a duty to enforce.
INFORMATION
1. The above legislation aims to protect children and young people from damage to their health by preventing the sale of tobacco to young people under the age of 16.
2. The 1991 Act also prevents the sale of loose cigarettes, and requires the display of warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines.
3. The penalties for selling tobacco to an under-age child is a fine of up to £2500; for selling loose cigarettes and for failure to display a warning statement, a fine of up to £1000.
4. The 1991 Act places a duty on every local authority to consider at least once in every 12 months the extent to which it is appropriate for them to carry out, in their area, a programme of enforcement action relating to the above legislation.
5. In future years, this programme will be devised by the Head of Consumer Protection together with other Officers as appropriate.
6. Such a programme may include any or all of the following :
· The prosecution of offences · The investigation of complaints
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 173 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · The taking of other measures intended to reduce the incidence of offences eg reminding traders of the law during routine visits: undertaking a publicity initiative; introducing a programme of test purchasing using young persons · The monitoring of vending machines
7. Programmes of enforcement up to 1998 were limited to the investigation of complaints. Usually, the only possible outcome to this type of complaint is a verbal caution to the trader.
8. In 1999, a programme of test purchasing, using young persons, was introduced. This was carried out in accordance with Home Office Guidelines, and strict procedures were introduced.
9. In 2000/01, 3 exercises took place, during which a total of 21 premises were visited. No sales were made to a young person during these exercises.
10. Such action, and the publicity resulting from it, has been shown to be an effective deterrent to traders.
11. This Action supports the proposals outlined by the Government in the White Paper “Smoking Kills” published in December 1998.
12. Other legislation controls the supply of various goods such as fireworks, videos and cigarette lighter refills to persons under certain ages. It is proposed that Officers of the Trading Standards Service expand the programme of test purchasing to include these age-restricted goods, and any others which may be controlled by legislation which the Trading Standards Authority has a duty to enforce.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
13. None
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
14 Estimate 6 Officer days per exercise – covering 6-8 retailers. This would be at the expense of another area of work, probably routine inspections. The work will involve ‘officer time’ for which there is budget provision.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Government White Paper : Smoking Kills-Chapter 3
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 174 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS INITIAL PROPOSALS FOR THE MAYORS SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT ITEM 25 STRATEGY
CONTACT OFFICER: Jean Palmer TELEPHONE: 7980
SUMMARY
This report briefly explains the purpose and context of the Mayors Consultation on the Spatial Development Strategy, or London Plan is as it is to be called.
It also sets out the key stages towards adoption of the plan, and the consultation period.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Members note the content of this report
2. Instruct officers to organise a seminar to work up a response to this key document
BACKGROUND
1. The Mayor has already produced Londonwide Strategies, a draft Economic Development Strategy, and a Transport Strategy.
2. Strategies on waste, noise, biodiversity, air quality and culture are also required to be produced. He has also chosen to develop ones on housing, energy and children.
3. All these strategies including the Spatial Development Strategy must take account of three cross cutting themes:-
· Health of Londoners · Equality of opportunity · Contribution to sustainable development in the UK.
THE LONDON PLAN
4. The London Plan will replace the current strategic planning guidance for London (RPG3).
5. The London Plan will:-
· Be the strategic plan setting out an integrated social, economic and environmental framework for the future development of London in the context of the wider South East region and Europe. · Look forward over a 15-20 year period. · Integrate the physical and geographic dimensions of the Mayor’s other strategies, including broad locations for change, providing a framework for land use management and development. · Set out proposals for implementing and funding the strategy. · Be the Londonwide context within which individual boroughs will set their local planning policies through their Unitary Development Plans. · Be London’s response to European guidance on spatial planning (the European Spatial Development Perspective)
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 175 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · Set the policy framework for the Mayor’s involvement in individual major planning decisions in London.
6. The boroughs will continue to be responsible for dealing with planning applications within their areas. But it will be necessary to consult the Mayor on planning applications with potential strategic importance, and in the last resort direct Boroughs to refuse planning permission on strategic grounds.
THE SIX CHALLENGES
7. There are six main challenges outlined in the initial proposals. These will be where the policy eventually set in the London Plan, may in some cases conflict in process with the Boroughs own proposals. These are:-
· Challenge 1 Economic and demographic grant · Challenge 2 Creating a prosperous city · Challenge 3 Increasing the supply of housing · Challenge 4 Ensuring an accessible city · Challenge 5 Promoting a green city · Challenge 6 Creating a city for people
SPATIAL FOCUS
8. The London Plan will also affect specific areas of London in different ways of particular interest to Hillingdon in:-
· The Western Wedge (stretches from Paddington to Heathrow)
Other area themes of relevance are · Town Centres · Urban Villages · Neighbourhoods · The Blue Ribbon Network
THE THREE STAGES AND CONSULTATION PLAN
9. This proposals document was only published on 8 May, and officers have had little time with committee deadlines to provide a full discussion paper to Members. However, officers have requested a Members Seminar on this matter and will produce further guidance at this stage.
10. This London Plan will be produced in three stages. This is stage one of the process:-
Stage 1. Towards the London Plan - this document sets out for consultation a vision for London and the broad policy directions which will guide the preparation of the draft London Plan. The Mayor wants views on these broad policy directions at an early stage to develop a consensus on the way forward and to assist with refining some of the specific proposals.
Stage 2. The draft London Plan – this will be published later in 2001/2. It will be a detailed formal planning document and must be accompanied by a sustainability appraisal. It will be subject to a statutory three-month consultation period. The responses to this consultation (and the
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 176 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Mayor’s views on those responses) will be considered by a government appointed Panel who will hold an ‘Examination in Public’ on the draft London Plan.
Stage 3. The final London Plan – taking account of the report of the panel, and subject to any direction by the Secretary of State, the Mayor will publish the final London Plan.
11. This stage one consultation period will run until 31 July 2001.
COMMENTS OF THE BOROUGH TREASURER
12. The recommendation to note the report has no financial implications. Implementing the strategy may well have financial consequences for the Council, but these are not known at this stage.
LEGAL COMMENTS
13. As set out in the body of the report the London Plan will become one of the criteria to be used in the planning process. It will be important to ensure that it is understood and applied correctly. As with any planning policy it will be open to challenge.
CONCLUSION
14. This proposal for a London Plan is of major significance to all London Boroughs.
15. Some of the Mayors proposal on certain issues such as:-
· High Density · Affordable Housing · Brownfield Development · High Buildings will be of key importance to Hillingdon. Once the London Plan is adopted, the boroughs own Unitary Development Plan will have to “fit in” with the plan, and equally as the London Plan is emerging at the same time as our UDP is being reviewed, it will be necessary to have regard to those emerging strategic policies. The Western London Boroughs are also meeting to attempt to pull together a “West London” response. It is however, considered important that Members consider this key document carefully and provide any comments to the Mayor at this initial consultation stage.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Nil
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 177 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS SOUND INSULATION SCHEME TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF ITEM 26 RAILWAY NOISE FROM THE GREAT WESTERN MAINLINE
CONTACT OFFICER: Colin Cobbing TELEPHONE NUMBER: 01895 277401
SUMMARY
This report examines the issue of railway noise at dwellings alongside the railway line between Denbigh Drive and the east end of Keith Road, and makes recommendations on ameliorative measures.
As a result of negotiation over the Heathrow Express Railway Bill, BAA agreed to pay a £100,000 settlement for further measures to reduce noise impact. This is available to help residents with a railway noise problem in the area south of the railway line in Hayes.
The implementation of a Noise Amelioration Scheme at wayside properties in Hayes, affected by railway noise form the mainline, was last reported to Community and Environment Committee on9 November 1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is RECOMMENDED that the Committee:
1 Instruct Officers to implement a sound insulation scheme in accordance with the details set out in this report.
2 Note the contents of this report and endorse the actions being taken by officers.
INFORMATION
1. As a result of negotiations over the Heathrow Express Railway Bill, BAA provided £100,000 for measures to reduce the impact of the Heathrow Express Railway at wayside properties in Hayes. This money was received in January 1996. Since 1996, the original sum of £100,000 has earned interest, making the total sum of £135,200 (31 March 2001).
2. The noise amelioration scheme is only concerned with those properties with elevations that have a line of sight to the railway line. A priority order list of properties has been developed using noise surveys of railway noise exposure levels: Keith Road (north side) Windsor Gardens (nos 26 - 29 inclusive) Marlow Gardens (nos 31 - 35 inclusive) Burnham Gardens (nos 44 - 45 inclusive) Clevedon Gardens (nos 35 - 39 inclusive) Stormount Drive (north side) Denbigh Drive (all) In total, about 230-250 properties are likely to have a line of sight of the railway line.
3. Railway noise can be mitigated using noise barriers or sound insulation measures.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 178 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4. The economic and practical feasibility of using barriers was explored earlier this year. Barriers are better at attenuating or reducing noise and are less visually intrusive if they are placed as close as possible to the railway line. Consequently, Railtrack was asked if they would be willing to use their land to allow barriers to be built on the intervening land between the railway line and the rear gardens of those properties in Keith Road. Railtrack confirmed that they were not prepared to allow barriers to be placed on their land and suggested that any barriers should be erected on land other than that belonging to the railway. The option of placing barriers, at the boundary between railway land and rear gardens, can effectively be ruled out on the basis that: · The relatively larger distances between the railway line and the barriers would diminish the effectiveness of the barriers, and · significant visual intrusion would occur because the barriers would need to be relatively tall at the boundary of the gardens.
5. Having established that the barrier option is not viable at this location, the remainder of this report sets out the details and preferred options for a sound insulation scheme.
Sound Insulation Schemes
6. Statutory sound insulation schemes provide secondary acoustic glazing, with a minimum distance between the inner and outer glass, mechanical ventilators and Venetian blinds. The treatment is available for eligible rooms, which are mainly living rooms and bedrooms. When kept in good repair, the level of sound insulation given by secondary acoustic glazing is better than that provided by thermal double-glazing. However, some studies have shown that, after secondary glazing has been installed for some time, the level of sound insulation given by secondary glazing can be comparable to that provided by thermal double-glazing. High- specification thermal double-glazing can provide a level of sound insulation that is similar or equivalent to that given by secondary acoustic glazing. The level of sound insulation given by each of the glazing systems can vary and strongly depends upon: · the quality of the glazing system, · the quality of the workmanship and the fit of the windows, and · the repair of the window systems.
7. A significant number of people, who have had secondary acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilators installed to their properties, are dissatisfied with the secondary acoustic glazing or the mechanical ventilators. Some people find that the secondary glazing and the mechanical ventilators are cumbersome, difficult to clean or otherwise unattractive.
8. BAA runs a voluntary sound insulation scheme. The scheme offers a choice between secondary acoustic glazing, thermal double-glazing or high-specification thermal double-glazing. A choice of ventilation systems is also offered.
THE PREFERRED OPTION FOR A RAILWAY NOISE SOUND INSULATION SCHEME IN HAYES
9. It is unlikely that all of the properties identified on the priority list could be treated within the sum of money available for the scheme. The over-ridding objective, therefore, is to treat the highest number of properties as possible within the budget constraints.
Double-glazing has been installed in a high proportion of properties. It would not be fair or equitable to exclude properties on the basis that double-glazing has already been installed or that double-glazing has been installed before or after the date when the financial settlement was made. Neither would it be fair to exclude properties if they have been occupied after the date Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 179 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS when the financial settlement was made. It is recommended, therefore, that no properties or individuals be excluded from the scheme on the basis of occupation or on the basis of whether or not double-glazing has already been installed.
10. Secondary acoustic glazing is significantly cheaper than replacement double-glazing. Significantly more properties could be treated if only secondary acoustic glazing was offered. However, such a scheme would deny choice, which is regarded as a major benefit of the sound insulation scheme run by BAA. This difficulty could be overcome by offering a financial contribution towards the cost of replacement double-glazing that would be equivalent to the cost of secondary acoustic glazing.
11. Ventilators should be offered, irrespective of whether the offer of secondary acoustic glazing or replacement double-glazing is accepted.
12. The sound insulation scheme may only cover habitable bedrooms and living rooms, similar to the eligibility rules contained within the statutory sound insulation schemes. This option would have the advantage of spreading the benefit of the scheme to a higher number of properties. Alternatively, the sound insulation scheme could cover the whole elevation facing the railway line.
13. Having regard to all the options set out above it is recommended that the scheme offers:
· secondary acoustic glazing, or a financial contribution towards the cost of replacement double- glazing, and · mechanical or passive ventilation.
The scheme should include habitable rooms facing the railway line.
Implementation of the Scheme
14. Everest Limited have provided prices for the works. Secondary glazing would cost £130 per square metre. Ventilators would cost up to £200 pounds each plus £21 making good. Many of the properties have two habitable rooms that face the railway line. If it is assumed that each habitable room has a window area of 2. 5 square metres, the secondary glazing would cost £650 per façade. The total cost per façade, with two mechanical ventilators, would be about £1,090. The total cost per façade, with two airbricks, would be about £910. Within a sum of £100,000, between 91 and 109 properties could be treated. Clearly, this is only a rough estimate and the actual number of properties would depend on the actual window area, the choice of ventilators and other factors affecting the price of the works.
15. The cost of the scheme for each street on the priority list would depend on the actual take- up of the scheme. Roughly 60% to 70% of the occupiers, who are eligible under the terms of the scheme run by BAA, take up the offer of sound insulation. It is sensible, therefore, that the sound insulation scheme is introduced in phases, starting with Keith Road and progressively working through the priority list. A written offer would be sent to each occupier within each phase of the scheme and the offer would be left open for a reasonable period of time.
16. It is recommended that the sound insulation work be carried out through a single nominated contractor. BAA have nominated Everest Limited to carry out all sound insulation works within their sound insulation scheme. The experience that Everest Limited has obtained in this area is seen as a significant advantage. It is recommended that the same contractors be appointed to carry out the proposed railway noise insulation scheme.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 180 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
17. Agreed to pay £100,000, as a result of negotiations between the Council and Heathrow Airport Limited over the Heathrow Express Bill, to be used for noise ameliorative measures. Therefore it is obliged to spend this money on measures such as the proposed double glazing.
18. The nomination of a single contractor would help to supervise the scheme and assure the quality of the works. The easiest way to implement the scheme will be to use Everest Limited, the company which implements BAA’s sound insulation scheme, as the single nominated contractor because they have the necessary experience, skills and local resources.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
19. Heathrow Airports Ltd have agreed to give £100,000 to the Council. Providing the eventual cost of the work is contained within the overall sum available from BAA, there should be no cost falling upon the Environment Committee’s revenue budget.
20. It would be necessary to charge for the management of the scheme from the financial settlement.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Nil
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 181 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE - UPDATE ITEM 27
CONTACT OFFICERS: Kathy Sparks Chris Norman TELEPHONE: 01895 277394
SUMMARY
To update members on the measures taken in relation to controlling the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak and the impact on the Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That members note the actions taken to prevent the spread of Foot and Mouth and endorse the measures taken by Officers relating to the re-opening of footpaths and open spaces to the public.
INFORMATION
1 The Declaration of Foot and Mouth disease was first made at the end of February and prohibited the movement of all susceptible disease species after 5pm on 23rd February.
2 This drastic action was seen as being imperative to prevent the spread of this highly infectious viral disease affecting cloven footed animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and some other ruminants. The disease could easily be transmitted by various routes such as direct animal contact, wind and mechanically by the movement of animals, people and vehicles.
3 Following this notification Hillingdon working on advice from the MAFF Veterinary Officer instigated a number of precautionary measures to minimise risks including:-
· Closure of footpaths, bridleways and towpaths regarded to be the greatest risk to livestock.
· Closure of the Boroughs four woodland areas, Mad Bess, Bayhurst Wood, Copse Wood and Park Wood.
· Closure of Cwm Pennant Mountain Centre and Park Lodge Farm Centre to visitors and the closure of the Hillingdon Nature Trail and Stockley Countryside Park.
· Closure of all Council managed Fishing lakes.
· Provision of advice and information by Environmental Health Officers to Farmers and livestock owners.
· Introduction of Foot and Mouth telephone hotline and website.
· Risk assessment of major events such as leisure and sporting activities.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 182 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4 As the outbreak spread rapidly across the Country Council officers assessed the ongoing situation and continued to provide advice and assistance to local residents liaising with other Local Authorities and Ministry Veterinary Officers.
5 Officers throughout the Council assisted in ensuring that the works required to prevent the disease spreading to the Borough were implemented including:-
· Erect warning notices and hazard warning tape to close land and footpaths.
· Carrying out risk assessments.
· Manage the hotline and regularly update the website.
· Deliver disinfectant and equipment to farms.
· Dealing with licenses for the controlled movement of animals.
· Spraying of vehicle tyres being exported from Heathrow Airport.
· Additional inspections at the Airport.
6 As a result of the outbreak the issue of smuggling of meat products in luggage and vegetable consignments at Heathrow has become a high priority. Officers are currently working with the Food standards Agency, MAFF and the Ministry to consider new controls to tighten up on procedures whereby travellers can bring meat products up to 1 kg into the country for their own personal consumption. This has resulted in a number of visits by the Food Standards Agency and high level meetings which aim to introduce new legislation and consider the financial costs of this work for Port Health Authorities.
7 Following new Government advice in early April risk assessments have been undertaken and regulations made permitting access to a number of areas including :-
Park Wood, Copse Wood, Poor's Field, Ruislip Lido, Stockley Countryside Park, Denham Quarry, Mad Bess and Bayhurst Woods. Several footpaths crossing grazing land will remain closed until the crisis is over.
8 This assessment regime will continue in line with the Governments guidance to minimise risk but allow assess for the public to open spaces.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9 The cost incurred on precautionary measures taken on behalf of the Environment Committee, at the time of writing, amounts to three thousand pounds. Closure of some Council facilities has resulted in some loss of income, for some recreational activities.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
10 No legal comments.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
None Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 183 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS E-SERVICES –TARGETS, MILESTONES AND RESOURCES ITEM 28
CONTACT OFFICER: Chris Norman Alan Buchanan TELEPHONE: 01895 277342
SUMMARY
Policy Committee on 22nd March 2001 considered a report that outlined development targets for E- Services within the authority, and a number of service specific issues. Policy Committee resolved that service Committees should receive quarterly reports on E-service targets, progress towards meeting them, their integration within Best Value, and return on investment achieved or to be achieved.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Council’s approach to development of E-Services be noted.
2. That the E-Services targets and deadlines set out in the report of officers for this Committee be approved.
INFORMATION
1. The Council is committed to achieving significant modernisation of its processes and interactions with the public, with a view to improving the services offered. Electronic technology will be a key tool to achieving this. This modernisation process is being further driven by central government. Local authorities are required to set Electronic Service Delivery (ESD) targets for specific services, and to identify citizen-centered service clusters (eg Life Episodes). ICT will provide the means for implementing changes, which need to be developed taking into account social exclusion, service accessibility, the power of well being, community leadership, new political management structures and the new ethical framework.
2. There is a Government target that by 2002 25% of services that can be provided electronically are, with the total rising to 100% by 2005. Local Authorities are encouraged to develop their own targets, consistent with these. To effectively implement these changes could require a fundamental change in the way the Council does business – the process of automation must occur alongside a review to ensure processes are user-centered and efficient. The Best Value reviews and best value performance plan should accordingly consider E-Services.
3. By 31st July 2001 the Council must produce a Implementing Electronic Government (IEG) statement, including the Council’s overall vision for modern service delivery in 2005, practical steps we will take to achieve it and milestones on the way there. Issues for service providers to consider as part of this are :
· How plans will connect with those of other local service providers · A commitment to joint investment · Accessibility and equity · A timescale for significant services to become available online · Developing the means for one stop handling of change of address · Providing one stop shops in partnership with other authorities and public services
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 184 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS · Improved effectiveness in dealing with customers over the phone through use of best practice in call handling · Procuring a significant proportion of goods and services online · All Councillor’s being on-line with an email address · Developing community strategies and partnerships around e-services – including community participation and sharing of information between other local public services · Piloting teleworking for appropriate staff · Upgrading mainstream financial and administrative systems to give online management information on finance and performance.
4. The following summary timetable for implementation of e-services was agreed by Policy Committee : · June 2001 – Board and member agreement to the Council’s Implementing Electronic Government (IEG) statement. · 31st July 2001 – submit IEG statement to DETR setting out the current position, key priorities for future services improvement and how they will work towards meting the 2005 target. · September 2001 – detailed National E-Local Government for England strategy published. · December 2001 – subject to satisfactory completion of the IEG statement allocations of SR2000 resources for 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 will be announced.
5. The E-Service targets for this Committee are as set out below. Although funding from the capital investment strategy has been identified, as well as ICT growth in the revenue budget, there will be a need for Groups to identify from existing budgets the resources to support the recurring monitoring and collection of Performance Indicator data, and also to initiate and manage change projects that will take advantage of the new technologies and means of delivering services. Groups are expected to contain the financial implications of this process within the cash limits set for the year and produce Cost Benefit Analyses and anticipated Return on Investment Statements for projects.
E-Services projects and deadlines for Environmental Services:-
Project Title: Customer Contact Centre
6. A Customer Contact Centre (CCC) will be set up to handle the majority of customer contacts for the Environmental Services Group (ESG). The contacts may be in person, by telephone, by letter or by electronic means including the internet. Essential for providing an excellent service will be rapid access, on the computer screen, to accurate information from all teams in the Group. Customers will perceive a quicker process time, improved quality and consistency of contact, and better access to services. The Council will benefit from improved customer satisfaction and cost savings in the form of improved staff utilisation.
7. Checking the feasibility and defining the scope of the project will have occupied the first half of 2001. Specifying and procuring the technology will take up the second half of the year, along with doing the groundwork for all necessary organisational changes. At this stage, it is envisaged that the CCC should become operational in the early 2002.
Project Title: Document Management System
8. A Document Management System will be implemented in suitable units and teams across the Environmental Services Group (ESG). Incoming mail and other documents will be scanned so that the image can be viewed by Officers on their PC screen. Work will be allocated and tracked via a “workflow” system. Documents of different origins will be filed and indexed so that Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 185 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS there will be minimal need to refer to the paper originals which will be sent to a remote archive. An initial project will be implemented, in the Consumer Protection division, in early summer 2001. The experience gained from this project will be used when rolling out the scheme through ESG in the following 12 months.
Project Title: Website Review
9. To review the content and function of the London Borough of Hillingdon’s website and produce a specification of any amendments required to improve the accuracy of its content, make it more customer-friendly, and facilitate electronic delivery of services, where currently possible. Apart from satisfying a Government directive, electronic service delivery benefits the Council by allowing self service to residents and other customers, thus extending the capability of the service teams.
10. This is a long term process which actually started in the year 2000. An audit of services capable of electronic delivery will be completed in June 2001, and Environmental Services will ensure that the target of 25% availability by 2002 is exceeded. It is also aimed to achieve 100% availability of electronic service delivery before the target of 2005.
Project Title: Home Working Pilot
11. This pilot scheme covers the IT and Personnel aspects of setting up officers to use their home as a base rather than their normal Civic Centre workstation. It is primarily aimed at officers whose work takes them out and about in the borough, to save them the time and fuel used coming into the Civic Centre at fixed times of the day. It is also crucial to achieving the aim of improved Civic Centre space utilisation by reducing the number of unoccupied desks. The success of the pilot will be evaluated an will guide decision making about further roll-outs of this initiative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
12. The Council has allocated funds within its Capital Programme 2001/02 for the Customer Contact Centre and Document Management System of £90k, and the Home Working Pilot £32k. Work on The Website Review will be involve ‘officer time’, funded from existing revenue staff budgets.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
13. No legal comments.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Report and minutes Policy Committee 22nd March 2001
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 186 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ENVIRONMENT GROUP OFFICER DELEGATIONS ITEM 29
CONTACT OFFICER : Susan Came TELEPHONE 01895 250472 SUMMARY
This report sets out the complete list of officer delegations in operation within the Environment Group and recommends some additions to reflect current service needs. The report also recommends a mechanism for officers to be appointed to exercise individual delegations.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That approval be given to the amendments to delegations indicated in italic type in the Appendix to this report.
2. That the Corporate Director and Heads of Service in the Group be empowered to carry out and to appoint authorised officers to carry out relevant statutory functions falling within the responsibility of the Group and to sign any documents associated with the exercise of those functions.
INFORMATION
1. The scheme of delegations to officers within the Environment Group was originally approved by the Urgency Sub-Committee in December 1997. Changes were made in relation to the planning delegations and these were approved by this Committee in June 1999 and changes in relation to the delegations relating to the transfer of recreation to the Group were approved by the Council in April 2001.
2. The Environment Committee in October 1999 agreed that all delegations within the Group would be held by the Corporate Director only except where they are proper officer functions carried out in accordance with statutory provisions.
3. There is also a scheme of delegations for all Corporate Directors and this was approved by the Council in July 2000. Again, all delegations in this are to the Corporate Director only.
4. The delegation to one postholder means that if other officers are to carry out the functions, they must be formally authorised to do so by the Corporate Director and any official notices that may have to be issued, such as notices of road traffic orders or decision notices on planning or other applications must be issued in the Corporate Director’s name.
5. Because of the large number of varied functions carried out by the Environment Group, the necessity to authorise other officers to carry out functions is a frequent occurrence. In some instances there has been confusion for others who are unclear about who to contact when they have received an official document and in some instances the person signing a document must hold a specific qualification. It is therefore considered expedient for the Committee to formally approve an arrangement for other officers to carry out certain functions.
6. Members are asked to note that no new delegations, other than as indicated, are proposed in this report. In all instances the Committee has the residual power to exercise any of the functions and indeed to remove delegations.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 187 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 7. Recommendation 2 in this report proposes a mechanism whereby the Corporate Director and Heads of Service in the Group may nominate other officers within the Group to carry out functions and sign notices in relation to the matters identified. This will avoid the need to seek Committee approval for every change that is required to the list of titles of postholders or names of individual officers who will exercise the delegated power.
8. Since the main bulk of the delegations were approved in 1997 there have been a number of changes in practice within the Group and the scope of some functions has been extended, principally in relation to licensing. In some instances the wording of the original delegation does not reflect the current legislation or the Council has taken decisions which require the document to be altered, as in the case of the recent Council decision on telecommunications masts. The opportunity has been taken in these cases to draft new or revised delegations and these are indicated in bold italics in the Appendix, together with a brief comment about each.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9. Comments contained in body of report.
RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
10. None.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Reports to Environment Committee 29.6.99 and 12.10.99 Report to Council meeting 13.7.00 Report to Urgency Sub-Committee 9.12.97
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 188 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS APPENDIX ENVIRONMENT GROUP OFFICER DELEGATIONS
These were approved by the Council meeting on 13.7.00.
DELEGATIONS TO CHIEF OFFICERS
Delegations are to the relevant corporate director who may discharge the function through one of his/her staff.
SECTION A: COMMON POWERS DELEGATED TO THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS:- a) the Chief Executive b) Corporate Directors
1. In performing any function the Chief Executive/Director must comply with Standing Orders, Financial Regulations and other Corporate Standards
2. To take any steps necessary for the day to day management and administration of any matters within the designated area of responsibility and to take overall responsibility for the performance of their service area.
3. To take all such action as ordinarily falls within the scope of professional responsibility and deal with all other matters delegated or to be delegated by Council, Committee or the Chief Executive.
4. To manage any budget for which the Director has lead responsibility within the approved cash limit, provided that no action is taken which would result in growth in future years or which would affect a budget which is not under the chief officer’s direct control.
5. To appoint external consultants to advise on any matter concerning the efficiency or organisation of services.
6. To exercise the council’s functions in obtaining registrations, licences, certificates or other similar documents required by the council, its officers or in Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 189 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS respect of its premises from any authority or body not being the council. 7. To exercise the council’s right of objection against any application made by third parties for registration, certificates, licences, orders and other similar matters. 8. To register, issue or grant licences (not being occupational licences), notices, certificates, orders or similar documents which the council are authorised or required to register, issue, grant, give or make by or under any enactment. 9. Subject to any limit imposed by the appropriate committee or sub committee, to exercise discretion in writing off or remitting in whole or in part debts due to the council, but only after all reasonable steps to recover them have been taken. Provided that no sums exceeding £5,000 shall be written off without the written approval of the Borough Treasurer. 10. Within their designated area of responsibility and subject to any corporate property standards to acquire or grant easements and leases for a term not exceeding seven years less 2 days and to acquire or dispose of any other interests in land the value of which does not exceed £50,000, provided the prior written concurrence of the Borough Treasurer has been obtained. 11. Subject to compliance with any corporate property standards to take any steps for the proper and effective management of such property falling within their designated area of responsibility. 12. Where power is not already delegated, to take decisions on behalf of the council where such decisions cannot conveniently wait for the next meeting of the appropriate committee or sub-committee, provided that there is prior consultation with and concurrence of the three party leaders or their appointed deputies. 13. In accordance with the Council’s Personnel Procedures, to appoint to, dismiss from and amend posts within the chief officer’s area of responsibility.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 190 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 14. To agree compensation payments not exceeding £5000 under the Council’s Complaints Procedure.
DELEGATIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GROUP
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MATTERS Comments/Notes 1. Enforcement of public health, environmental health Rewording to include Port Health and environmental protection legislation for the responsibility. Authority and the Port Health Authority including statutory nuisance. 2. Noise abatement measures under appropriate legislation and operation of any Heathrow Airport noise insulation schemes.
3. Enforcement of the legislation for clean air and integrated air pollution.
4. Operation of the grant scheme for the adaptation or replacement of fireplaces for clean air purposes.
5. Monitoring of water supply and quality, initiation of remedial action where required for separate water supplies to dwellings.
6. Enforcement of public health, drainage and sanitation provisions for premises and clearance of watercourses, ditches and ponds.
7. Operation of the Pest Control and Animal Welfare Additional wording to incorporate animal Service. welfare service
8. Regulation of poisons.
9. Inspection of lodging houses and canal boats. Delete – now a housing group function.
10. Regulation of explosives and other dangerous substances other than poisons).
11. Regulation of offensive trades and alkali works. Delete – no longer in existence. 12. Operation of health education and health promotion services.
13. Prevention, monitoring and control of the spread of infectious diseases.
14. Administration of the Health Control Unit at Heathrow.
15. Enforcement of legislation on food, food safety, food Additional wording to clarify that it hygiene and control, including the importation of food. covers port health authority function.
16. Authorisation of payments for the restoration of gas, Delete – now a housing group electricity and water supplies. responsibility. Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 191 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 17. Registration and determination of licence applications in respect of persons, premises and processes or in respect of particular foods or drink. 18. Authorisation of applications for emergency closing orders for food premises, stalls or vehicles and subsequent enforcement action.
19. Client role for the refuse collection service. Rewording proposed to reflect current situation, as follows:- 19. Operation of the refuse collection service 20. Management of recycling and civic amenity facilities.
21. Client role on the operation of public conveniences. Rewording proposed to reflect current situation, as follows:- 21. Operation of public conveniences. HEALTH, SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PLANNING MATTERS 22. Enforcement of all statutory health and safety provisions.
23. Approval of working arrangements with the Health and Safety Executive and transfer of responsibility for premises.
24. Approval of emergency expenditure and payments to individuals in accordance with approved policies. MATTERS RELATING TO ANIMALS 25. (a) Inspections, licensing and enforcement of animal health and welfare provisions including markets, fairs, circuses, zoos, pet shops, slaughterhouses, dangerous wild animals, transit or animals and establishments for riding, breeding and boarding of animals (except in relation to dogs). (b) Inspections, licensing and enforcement of animal health and welfare provisions including breeding and boarding in relation to dogs. 26. Operation of the Dog Warden Service. Delete – incorporated in delegation 7. Above. 27. Operation and enforcement of statutory provisions concerning stray dogs, guard dogs and rabies.
TRADING STANDARDS, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION MATTERS 28. Exercise of weights and measures functions including the authorisation of notices and subsequent enforcement action.
29. Exercise of trading standards, consumer safety and consumer protection functions and the authorisation of notices.
30. Enforcement of policies covering shop opening hours and determination of applications for the suspension of general opening hours. Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 192 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 31. Determination of applications for night cafes. (See also delegations to Appeals Panel).
32. Determination of applications for street trader’s Move this paragraph to the section on licences and temporary markets and enforcement action Highways Matters. as necessary.
33. Regulation of furniture trade materials. Delete – incorporated in delegation 29 above. 34. Operation of consumer advice and education services. LICENSING MATTERS 35. Exercise of miscellaneous licensing/registration Additional wording to cover any functions including determination of applications for variations in types of premises. licences or registration for nursing agencies, accommodation agencies, scrap metal dealers, game dealers, establishments, acupuncturists, tattooing, ear piercing, electrolysis or similar premises and enforcement action as necessary.
36. Exercise of miscellaneous licensing/registration functions including determination of applications for licences or registration for sale of goods by competitive bidding.
37. Determination of applications for entertainment Additional words in bold italics proposed licences, for the registration of door supervisors and to be added to reflect current legislation. for the approval of premises for the purpose of civil marriage ceremonies and approval of changes to the technical regulations, rules, standards, guidelines or criteria governing public functions. (See also delegations to Appeals Panel). 37a. The granting of waiver requests in respect of Additional words in bold italics proposed entertainment licensing fees which have been made to be added to reflect current legislation in accordance with the provisions of the relevant and previous Committee decision. legislation. 37b. The granting of written requests to waive or Additional words in bold italics proposed reduce the fees relating to entertainment licensing in to be added to reflect current legislation respect of churches, community associations and and previous Committee decision. other non-profit making groups in accordance with the guidance previously agreed with the appropriate Committee of the Council. 37c. The approval of refunds of entertainment Additional words in bold italics proposed licensing fees which are in accordance with the to be added to reflect current legislation Council’s agreed procedures and rules governing and previous Committee decision. such refunds. 38. Determination of applications for permits under betting and lotteries legislation.
39. Authorisation of Council objections to the granting of a track betting licence.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 193 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 39a. Designation of individual technical officers to Additional words in bold italics proposed undertake environmental and consumer protection to be added to reflect current legislation. powers. 39b. All matters relating to the safety of sports Additional words in bold italics proposed grounds including inspections, enforcement and the to be added to reflect current legislation. issuing of any required safety certificate or licence. 39c. The issuing of consents or approvals in respect Additional words in bold italics proposed of applications made under the ALG/Metropolitan to be added to reflect current legislation. Police Code of Practice for unregulated events. HIGHWAYS MATTERS 40. The service of notices and/or counter-notices on public utility undertakers in relation to the breaking up of streets. (Bus shelters - 25/6/96 C&E).
41. Administration of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, Part III (Street Works) on behalf of the Council as the Street Authority. (Control co-ordination of street works and enforcement).
42. To approve applications under Section 38, Highways Act 1980 - Construction of New Streets. 43. To authorise the adoption of streets and drains constructed under agreements with the Council. 44. To authorise emergency repairs to private streets in accordance with Section 230(3) of the Highways Act 1980.
45. The adoption of footpaths and streets as highways maintainable at public expense.
46. The authority to make final apportionments for any private street work undertaken by the Council, as Highway Authority, in accordance with Section 211 of the Highways Act 1980.
47. The authority to issue all notices, consents, approvals, orders, demands, licences, estimates and other documents authorised or required by or under Section 321 of the Highways Act 1980.
48. Determination of applications for any purpose allowed by legislation (Highway Management).
49. Control of street lighting, direction signs, highway seats and other street furniture.
50. Preparation and maintenance of the definitive RIGHTS OF WAY map.
51. Authorisation and issue of street litter control notices.
52. All matters concerning applications for street trading licences. 53. Authorisation, subject to legal advice, of legal proceedings under street trading legislation.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 194 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 54. Supervision of reservoirs in accordance with the Reservoirs Act 1975 and the appointment of an Inspecting Engineer; Construction Engineer; and Supervising Engineer as and when required by the Act.
55. Determination of authorisation of parking bays on the highway for disabled people.
56. Removal of abandoned vehicles.
57. Removal or prevention of obstructions of the highway.
57A. Authority to close public rights of way and public footpaths on land owned by the Group for a temporary period and subject to confirmation by the next meeting of the Committee.
TRAFFIC MATTERS 58. To determine AA/RAC temporary direction signs applications. 59. Authorisation of making of Traffic Regulation Orders.
60. The authorisation of the making of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).
61. Officer named for the purposes of obtaining confidential information in pursuance of parking offences. 62. Making of Orders under the Town and Country Act - to permit vehicles to use highways in cases where they would not otherwise be permitted. 63. To permit vehicles to use highways in cases where they would not otherwise be so permitted. (In accordance with the provisions of Orders made under the Town and Country Planning Act).
64. Officer who shall waive, in exceptional circumstances, fees, charges and notice in car parks and in respect of on-street, footway and verge parking.
65. Response to consultations from transport operators on minor changes to timetables, routing and charges. 66. Approval of waiting and loading restrictions, where no objections have been received.
67. Approval of pedestrian crossing facilities.
68. Approval of scheme details for traffic management schemes where the principal has already been agreed by Committee.
69. Determination of roads to be exempted from footway parking controls.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 195 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BUILDING CONTROL MATTERS 70. The naming and renaming of streets and buildings, the numbering and renumber of buildings.
71. All functions in relation to dangerous structures/buildings including securing the removal of dangerous structures/buildings, and the service of notices under the Building Act 1984 (in as far as they relate to dangerous structures/buildings) and employing contractors to carry out emergency works.
72. Those functions and duties relating to the administration and enforcement of the Building Regulations and allied legislation:- (i) determination of Full Plans applications and Building Notices submitted under the Building Regulations; (ii) the checking and verification of certificates submitted by approved persons (iii) the checking of notices and certificates other than in (ii) above, given under the Building (Approved Inspectors, Etc.) Regulations; (iv) determination and vetting of appropriate fees; and (v) the service of notices under the Building Regulations and Building Act 1984 (in so far as they relate to the Building Regulations).
73. All functions in relation to:- (a) ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites; and (b) demolition of buildings including the service of notices under the Building Act 1984 (in so far as they relate to ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites and the demolition of buildings).
PLANNING MATTERS 74. Determination of applications as to whether planning permission is required.
75. Determination of applications for Certificates of Lawfulness for existing use or Development. 76. Determination of applications for single dwellings and housing developments of less than 10 dwellings.
77. Determination of applications for changes of use of retail units, apart from those involving a loss of A1 uses.
78. Determination of applications for changes of use of industrial units apart from changes to retail uses.
79. Determination of Householder applications in the Green Belt.
80. Determination of all other applications not included in Redraft for clarity as follows:- the attached schedule for which petitions of under 20 1. Approval of any application or signatures have been received which are to be approved consent not included in the attached in accordance with policy. schedule and which does not conflict
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 196 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS with any relevant planning policies, which is acceptable on planning grounds and where no valid planning objection has been received unless this is in the form of a petition of over 20 signatures.
2. Refusal of any application or consent not included in the attached schedule which conflicts with any relevant planning policies or planning standards except where it is supported independently by a person or persons other than the applicant or by a petition of over 20 signatures. 81. Approval of details required by conditions imposed on the granting of planning permission and where there are no objections.
82. Determination of applications under the Copsewood Covenant.
83. Determination of applications for Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development.
84. Determination of any application under the appropriate Town and Country Planning General Regulations for Council development which satisfy any of the above delegated powers. 85. Approval of responses to proposals which would have fallen within delegation arrangements if a planning application had been required, i.e. applications under Circular 18/84, consultations on applications submitted to neighbouring planning authorities and applications for determination as to whether prior approval is required under the General Development Order.
86. Approval of ancillary planning agreements and determination of related planning applications, subject to the approval of the relevant Planning Sub-Committee of the main head of terms.
87. Authorisation of planning and highways agreements where it is considered appropriate to secure a particular objective, and which would not conflict with any of the Council’s planning policies. 88. The entering of land within the Borough for any purpose or purposes required in connection with the exercise of any statutory planning function.
89. The issue of Planning Contravention Notices.
90. The issue of Breach of Condition Notices. 91. Authorisation and issue of Enforcement Notices under the Town and Country Planning Act & Planning and Compensation Act. Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 197 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 92. Authorisation and issue of Enforcement Notices in connection with Tree Preservation Orders.
93. All Statutory powers other than those delegated to the Planning Sub-Committees in relation to Tree Preservation Orders made under the Town and Country Planning Act and in relation to trees in Conservation Areas.
94. Determination of applications for work to trees covered by a Preservation Order in accordance with the above delegated powers.
95. Action requiring the removal or obliteration of unauthorised advertisements.
96. Serving of building preservation notices. 97. Responses to consultations on plans and policies of local authorities and other bodies which do not conflict with existing council policies.
(See separate schedule of major/contentious applications which will be reported to Committees).
SCHEDULE OF MAJOR/CONTENTIOUS APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL BE REPORTED TO COMMITTEE
1. All applications for which petitions of over 20 signatures have been received.
2. Dwellings – 10 or more dwellings or site of 0.5 hectares or more.
3. Offices/research and development/light industry – 1000 square metres or more.
4. Heavy industry/storage/warehousing – 1000 square metres or more or site area of over 1 hectare.
5. Retail distribution and servicing – 1000 square metres or more or site area of 1 hectare or more.
6. All other major development – 1000 square metres or more or site area of 1 hectare or more.
7. Sites where enforcement action agreed by Committee has been taken.
8. Major aviation development leading to a major quantifiable increase in capacity.
9. All departures from the development plan.
10. Applications on Green Belt land, apart from Householder applications.
11. Development affecting listed buildings and their settings.
12. Telecommunications masts and associated equipment wherever the statutory time constraints of such applications allows. (added following Council decision)
N.B. Policy is considered to be that contained in the UDP, and in Supplementary Planning Guidance and the Design Guidance.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 198 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS LOCAL LAND CHARGES MATTERS 98. The maintenance of the Local Land Charges Register, and the exercise of all functions of the Council under the Local Land Charges Acts and the Local Land Charges Rules. RECREATION AND OTHER PROPERTY MATTERS 99. Authority to serve notices and arrange removal of trees on non-Council owned land. 100. Management and implementation of current policies, as approved by the appropriate Committee or Sub-Committee, in relation to the letting of land and buildings held by the Environmental Services Group or managed by it on behalf of other Groups, together with the signing and issue of related notices. 101. Signing and issue of notices for matters concerning allotments, grave spaces and memorial stones. 102. Authority to serve notices on travellers in respect of their occupation of Council owned land.
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 199 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS SEMINARS FOR ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ITEM 30
CONTACT OFFICER : Ruth Willis TELEPHONE : 01895 250531 SUMMARY
This report highlights those strategic issues contained with the Environmental Service’s Group’s Service Plan, where separate seminars with members of the Environment Committee are required in order to ensure a more detailed briefing/discussion.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Committee agree the list of topics for additional briefing/seminars for members of the Environment Committee.
2. The attendance at the seminars be classed as an approved duty.
INFORMATION
1. Additional seminars on a variety of topics members of the Environment Committee, to ensure that some specific strategic issues within the Environmental Services’ Group’s Service Plan are explored with Members in more detail. Some of these include areas of new legislation. They are as follows:
Spatial Development Strategy (June) Members Roles in Best Value Reviews* (July) Review of Service Plan Objectives* (September) UDP Review (January 2002 SI06 – exploiting opportunities (July) Air Quality Management (December) Transport Strategy Foods Standards Agency*
2. The Committee's attention is drawn to this so that members are aware of the additional seminars/briefings that will take place during the coming year. In order that travelling allowances may be paid to members attending these seminars, the Committee is asked to agree that attendance be classed as an approved duty.
*Those asterixed are for members of Environment Committee only.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
3. No legal comments.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4. The report has no financial implications
BACKGROUND PAPERS
None
Environment Committee report 19th June 2001 Page 200 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 19TH JUNE 2001
SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Report of the officers, continued
34 Transfer of POS, Travellers, Events, and the Park Patrol Service Page 1 35 Local Environmental Improvement Programme – Philpotts Farm, Page 11 Yiewsley
Also enclosed are the following documents:-
Booklet on Draft Parking Strategy – this is referred to as Appendix A in Item 20 on the main agenda.
Recommendation from the Parking Sub-Committee held on 11th June 2001 concerning Charges for Parking Permits and Waivers (page 14)
Revised Resource Implications for Item 9 on the main agenda.(Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy). Please insert the following para. in place of printed paragraph 6 on page 43.
‘The report seeks agreement to appoint a Project Officer, when the current post-holder leaves, subject to the availability of funding from a S106 agreement for a second term of two years. Providing the developer agrees to this use of funds, and there are no other legal restraints, no additional employment costs should fall upon the Environment Committee’s revenue budget.
Further legal advice has been received that the appointment does not need the agreement of the developer and that there are no legal restraints in this respect’. TRANSFER OF POS, TRAVELLERS, EVENTS, AND THE PARK ITEM 34 PATROL SERVICE
CONTACT OFFICERS : Viv Woodcock, Philomena Bach, David Bryant TELEPHONE : 01895 250615/250158/250416
SUMMARY
This report provides members of the Committee with an update following the transfer of the responsibility for the Parks and Open Spaces Service from Education, Youth and Leisure Group to the Environmental Services Group. The report asks the Committee to note the budget position following the transfer, to be aware of the land and property which has transferred to the Committee, and to endorse the action taken so far in establishing a Park Patrol Service.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee
1. note the transfer of Parks and Open Spaces was successfully concluded on 1st April 2001
2. note the budget which has transferred as outlined in paragraph 2
3. Note the recommendation from the Best Value Review of Outdoor Recreation to invest £500,000 per year from the Capital Programme into the Parks Improvement Programme
4. endorse the approach to the establishment and management of the Park Patrol Service
5. Authorise Officers to enter into dialogue with the National Trust to explore the future for Ruislip Woods
INFORMATION
Detailed Considerations
1. In his report entitled Organisational Review of the Council to the Policy Committee on 17/12/98 the Chief Executive proposed that as part of the re-organisation and restructuring of the whole Council, the Parks and Open Spaces service should transfer to the Environmental Services Group. This was also endorsed as an outcome of the Best Value Review of Outdoor Recreation in Parks and Open Spaces. This transfer took place on 1st April 2001.
Budget Transferred from Education Committee to Environment Committee
2. The budgetary provision for Parks and Open Spaces agreed to date under the transfer is £2,587,990.
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 1
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3. This will appear in the Council’s Budget Book, and therefore in the Environment Committee Account from April 2002 in line with council financial procedures.
Land and Property Responsibilities Transferred.
4. The responsibilities, which transferred to the Environmental Services Group, are for the entire Borough’s Parks and Open Spaces: The Council is responsible for 165 Parks and Open Spaces, which are of varying size and quality. The Council has a partnering contract with Sodhexo Land Technology for the grounds maintenance of the all the parks, open spaces and sports pitches
§ Cemeteries The Council is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Boroughs 8 cemeteries and burial grounds and 2 closed churchyards, carrying out about 500 Interments per annum.
§ War Memorials The Council is responsible for the maintenance of 10 war memorials across the Borough
§ Trees: The Council is responsible for many thousands of trees growing in an urban setting. These include trees on the highway, schools, housing land, parks and green belt areas. Through management programs of planting, pruning and felling, it is the Council’s aim to maintain a harmonious relationship between people and trees.
§ Woodlands: The Council manages 726 acres of National Nature Reserve (Ruislip Woods) as well as 250 acres of other publicly accessible woodlands. Ruislip Woods is managed through a tripartite agreement with English Nature, Ruislip Woods Management Advisory Group and the London Borough of Hillingdon
§ Sports Pitches: There are 76 sports pitches throughout the Borough under the management of Hillingdon Council. These are predominately in parks and open spaces, catering for football, rugby, cricket and hockey.
§ Bowling Greens: Hillingdon Council owns and manages 13 bowling greens, and owns and leases two further greens to bowling clubs.
§ Allotments: Hillingdon Council owns 37 allotment sites which are managed in a variety of ways – devolved management, partially devolved management and managed by the Council. There are 1,736 plots in Hillingdon of which 42% are let.
§ Playgrounds: Hillingdon Council is responsible for 101 equipped children’s playgrounds mainly sited within its Parks and Open Spaces, although some are located on recreational land on housing estates.
§ Conservation. Hillingdon Council is responsible for numerous wildlife areas and three areas of the borough – River Pinn Meadows, Yeading Brook Meadows and Philpots Farm Meadows – are in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Other areas of Council land designated as Nature Reserves are managed by local groups – London Wildlife Trust, Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, Hillingdon Natural History Society and Friends of Ruislip Local Nature Reserve, who liaise closely with the officers. Guided tours are arranged in these areas. Advice is provided to schools on the creation and maintenance of conservation areas in the school grounds. Lectures are given to local groups.
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 2
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § Bridleways: Hillingdon Council is responsible for the maintenance of a 40-mile network of bridleways. There are 6 miles of statutory and 34 miles of permissive bridleways. There are no dedicated staff or budget for the management and maintenance of these
§ Hard Courts: The Council manages 23 hard surface sports courts for tennis, football, netball, hockey, basketball and other information recreational activities. There are no specific budgets or staff for the management and maintenance of these areas.
§ Water Areas: Hillingdon contains a large number of lakes, rivers and ponds, which make a significant contribution to the attractiveness of Hillingdon. These areas play a significant part in the Council’s conservation strategy. There is no dedicated budget or staff for the management and maintenance of these areas.
§ Ruislip Lido: This substantial body of water, surrounded by Ruislip Woods is a popular recreational area, managed by the council which has in recent years benefited from improvement works.
5. The land and property transferred to the Committee from the Education Youth and Leisure Committee is attached as appendix A
Key issues about the land and property ownership:
Property Maintenance
6. There are a great number of properties that have transferred to the committee that require maintenance. There is a limited budgetary resource available for maintenance works, which allows for essential health and safety works only to be carried out. Therefore very little or no routine or non-essential maintenance works are carried out.
Public Conveniences
7. The future of Public Conveniences in parks and open spaces, which are currently non- operational, is being considered as part of the Best Value Review of Public Conveniences
Ruislip Woods
8. The Best Value Review of Outdoor Recreation explored the operation of Hillingdon’s Woodlands. The findings were that although a good level of service is provided Ruislip Woods is significantly underfunded and the scope for future investment is limited. The National Trust and the Corporation of London have both expressed interest in developing a partnership with Hillingdon Council to manage Ruislip Woods. Both would offer investment as part of an agreed management plan. The Review concluded with a proposal to further explore and develop these options in partnership with the Management Advisory Group as part of the Best Value Action Plan. This report seeks authorisation for Officers to approach both the National Trust and Corporation of London to begin a more formal dialogue on behalf of the Council.
Future Investment in Parks and Open Spaces
9. The Best Value report Outdoor Recreation in Parks and Open spaces Identified a need for significant capital investments into parks and open spaces and recommended that the sum of
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 3
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS £500,000 be allocated to the Parks Improvement Programme each year for a period of 5 years. A pilot allocation was granted for the year 2000/2001, which funded refurbishment and improvements works in 5 parks and 5 children’s playgrounds.
10. It is suggested that this should continue to be a priority within the Capital Investment Programme to ensure that the Parks Improvement Programme continues in accordance with the review, to ensure continued improvement of our parks and open spaces
11. The review also contains an action plan which officers are currently working to implement. An update on the progress made on the implementation of the plan will be presented to a future meeting of this committee.
Asset Review
12. A review of all assets transferring will be undertaken, which will include assets such as car parks. The outcome of this review will be reported to a future Committee and will form the basis of an asset management plan.
Park Patrol Service
13. The Youth and Leisure Committee established a requirement to introduce a Parks Constabulary Service.
14. Following the transfer of parks and open spaces to the Environment Group further works have been carried out in preparation for the introduction of the service.
§ Progress to date
15. Officers have been involved in partnership working with the Metropolitan police who are keen that a scheme to improve safety in Parks is a success. The Police will be working with the Council to facilitate the successful establishment of this service. From initial meetings it was clear that there was a preference for the service to be one that was primarily pro-active, promoting and encouraging proper use of the facilities, and undertaking enforcement of the Parks Bye Laws in association with the police under a partnership arrangement. As part of the partnership approach the police will be providing assistance in the recruitment process for the patrol staff.
16. It is proposed to name the service The Park Patrol Service, and to bring the service into operation in mid July 2001, subject to a successful recruitment campaign. Advertisements have been placed to recruit 5 permanent members of staff for the service and a number of relief staff for the extra cover needed during the summer months. Initial reports are that there has been a high level of interest in these posts. The service will be based in the Council depot at Fassnidge Park
17. The Park Patrol Service will be responsible for undertaking works relating to unauthorised encampments in line with the jointly agreed protocol between the Council and the Police.
Dog (Fouling of Land) Act 1996
18. On reference from the Environment Committee, the Education Committee (2nd December 1999) was requested to consider identifying land in its control for designation under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, in order to enable dog fouling to be dealt with more effectively. The Education Committee resolved
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 4
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § That the land listed in the appendix be designated for the purposes of making an Order under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 § That the issue of enforcement of the Order be addressed through the Parks and Open Spaces Best Value Review § That the Local Government Association be requested to ask the Government to allow local authorities to retain the income from fixed penalties raised under this legislation
19. Officers in Environmental Services Group will ensure that this Council resolution is implemented and enforced appropriately.
The Council’s Key Objectives
§ Value for Money – The Best Value Reviews of Outdoor Recreation and Grounds Maintenance found that the services did provide Value for Money, and are among the lowest cost services within the comparative family group. The findings also pointed to a need for further and continued investment in Parks and Open Spaces to bring the facilities to an acceptable standard. § Better Services – Consultation with local people showed that people want better quality Parks. Officers will explore the Quality Standards available for Parks, in particular the Green Flag Scheme, and will report back on a quality management approach for the management of the Borough’s Parks and Open Spaces. § Involving the Community Locally – the Parks and Open Spaces Officers have set up a series of Management Advisory Groups and work closely with a number of “Friends” Groups. This, together with the developing joint inspection approach, is an excellent way of involving the local community in improving the service and facility. This approach will be developed, included an exploration of the possibilities of devolving the management of some facilities – such as allotments and bowling greens – as outlined in the Best Value Review report. § Partnerships – The Management Advisory Groups referred to above are an innovative form of partnership working. In addition to this, there is a developing partnership approach with the Metropolitan Police to ensure that the Council’s aspirations for Community Safety are achieved in Parks. The approach to the future management of Ruislip Woods may lead to a valuable partnership for Hillingdon Council. § Modernising the way we work – Officers in Environmental Services are exploring how we can improve customer service through the use of new technology. It is quite possible that Parks and Open Spaces will be an ideal candidate for the improved Customer Contact Centre, thus facilitating easier access to information of the Council’s Parks and Opens Spaces for the public. In addition, work is underway to ensure that information on the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces services are on the Web-site, providing an alternative and informative way for the public to gain access to the services.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
20. There are no legal implications.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
21. The recommendations have no financial implications.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
§ Report of the Chief Executive to Policy Committee 17th December 1998
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 5
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 Report to Education Commiitee 2nd December 1999 § Best Value Review of Outdoor Recreation to Best Value Sub Committee November 2000
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 6
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § P1
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 7
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § p2
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 8
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § p3
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 9
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § p4
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 10
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § p5
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 11
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS § p6
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 12
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME – PHILPOTTS ITEM 35 FARM, YIEWSLEY
CONTACT OFFICER: Linda Arlidge TELEPHONE: 01895 277830
SUMMARY
This report informs Members of proposals for the Pilot Local Environmental Improvement Programme at Philpotts Farm, Yiewsley, funding for which was agreed by Policy Committee in February 1999. It sets out projects arising from the public consultation held in December 1999, and seeks approval for officers to proceed with the schedule for implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Members note the results of the extensive public consultation.
2. That Members endorse the schedule of projects for the scheme listed at 4.
3. That Members authorise officers to implement the scheme in consultation with the local residents.
INFORMATION
1. At its meeting on 25th February 1999, Policy Committee allocated £250,000 capital funding towards a Pilot Local Environmental Improvement Programme at Philpotts Farm estate, Yiewsley. The objective of the pilot, as stated in the Committee report, is to:
“Enhance projects approved under other criteria, but which can be expanded, complemented or extended to provide a comprehensive enhancement of the environment to meet the community needs in specific areas. The concept would be primarily focussed towards environmental issues and would address highways, footways, lighting, drainage and landscaping. The opportunity would however exist to provide improvements across wider service areas, particularly recreation, in terms of parks and playgrounds”.
2. In summer 1999 responsibility for the programme passed to Environmental Services.
3. A consultation with residents in December 1999 resulted in a number of environmental improvement projects being suggested. The result of the consultation, including a list of possible projects, was reported to the Environment Committee on 28th March 2000.
4. It is proposed to progress the following schedule of projects during 2001/2002:
Footpath by the River Pinn. Forming part of the Celandine Route through the Borough, the footpath between High Street, Yiewsley and Pield Heath Road is to be reconstructed, together with a link to Heather Lane on the estate. It is proposed to construct the gravel footpath, with riverside seats, some tree planting and dog bins, this summer following litter and undergrowth removal. The total cost of the footpath works is estimated at £62,000. A contribution of £15,000 has been secured from the London Marathon Charitable Trust towards this project.
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 13
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Highway improvements/verge protection measures. It is proposed to create additional parking bays (some for the disabled) and provide additional verge protection measures following further consultation with residents and Housing Services. It is planned to complete the works by March 2002 and to spend £125,000 on these measures.
Lighting alleyways and parking areas. It is proposed to improve lighting on footpaths, and at one unlit parking area. It is planned to complete the works by March 2002 and to spend £50,000 on these measures.
Rejuvenation and addition of street trees. It is planned to spend £5000 on this aspect of the project by December 2001.
Contingency fund. It is proposed that the remaining £23,000 of the budget be held as contingency, and for other projects on the estate arising as the result of consultation.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5. There are no legal implications.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
6. The work will be charged to the Environment Committee’s capital Programme for which there is a budget of £250K in 2001/2002, which has been carried forward from 1999/2000.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Policy Committee 25th February 1999 Environment Committee 28th March 2000
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 14
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF PARKING AND TRAFFIC SUB-COMMITTEE 11 JUNE 2001
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
PARKING PERMITS AND WAIVERS – ITEM 12
Consideration was given to the introduction of a scheme for the issue of Mobile Permits and School Permits for use in Controlled Parking Zones. The report set out proposals for the operation of the scheme, including the costs proposed for each type of permit.
Concern was expressed about the proposals for a School Permit and following discussion it was agreed that a further report about School Permits be made to the next meeting of the Sub- Committee.
RECOMMENDED
1. That approval be given to the following charges for Mobile Permits and Waivers:-
Mobile Permits Commercial Organisations £120 per quarter Non-profit making organisations £20 per annum Commercial organisations carrying £20 per annum or £5 per quarter out work for the Council Extended Waivers Non-profit making organisations or £20 per annum individuals Commercial organisations £120 per quarter Commercial organisations carrying £20 per annum or £5 per quarter out work for the Council
RESOLVED
2. That the Corporate Director of Environmental Services be delegated authority to introduce, manager and administer (a) a Mobile Permit Scheme and (b) to modify the waiver exemption scheme to allow a wider category of users and the introduction of extended waivers on a quarterly and annual basis as indicated in the officers report.
3. That a further report be made to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee on the School Permit scheme.
4. That a progress report be submitted to the first meeting of the Sub-Committee following implementation of the schemes.
Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 15
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Environment Committee supplementary report 19th June 2001 Page 16
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS