Issue - meetings

It was noted that Cabinet had taken account of the TfL late representation, the officer’s response and the request for an additional sentence to be added to the report. This information was sent to Cabinet Members by email on Wednesday 4 July and is outlined below:

The Council received comments from Transport for London (TfL) on 3^rd July 2018 requesting that a strip of land to the north-eastern boundary of the proposed neighbourhood area be removed.  TfL advise that the strip of land is TfL operational land and in their view does not meet the requirements for defining the boundaries of a neighbourhood area as set out in national guidance.  They go on to advise that should the boundary remain unchanged then any neighbourhood plan should treat this area consistent with its status as operational land and in accordance with London Plan and local plan policies.

LBHF Planning Officer’s response:  The strip of land referred to by TfL is relatively small in the context of the wider proposed neighbourhood area and its current operational use is not considered to justify a revision to the boundary for the proposal to sit comfortably with national guidance and other material considerations.  Officers are also mindful that prior to adoption a proposed neighbourhood plan would be subject to public consultation, an independent examination and finally a referendum.

Officers requested to insert the words in bold below into the second sentence of paragraph 4.28 of the report, which the Cabinet agreed:

“The aims of the proposed forum are not considered to be in conflict with the policy context for the site and we cannot assume the current planning permission, in relation to significant works to the housing estates, will be implemented.”

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet agrees to:

·         designate the proposed area as applied for; and

·         designate the proposed neighbourhood forum.

2.    “To note that Cabinet has considered the report, the TfL late representation, the officer’s response and has agreed to their request to insert the words in bold below into the second sentence of paragraph 4.28 of the report:

“The aims of the proposed forum are not considered to be in conflict with the policy context for the site and we cannot assume the current planning permission, in relation to significant works to the housing estates, will be implemented.”