Receive (if any)

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are invited to disclose any interests in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.  Members may still declare an interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

There were no disclosures of interests.

The Chairman will announce details of the arrangements in case of fire or other events that might require the meeting room or building’s evacuation.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 1 July 2025 and authorise the Chairman to sign them,

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

Report attached

The committee were presented with a report on the adoption of conservation area appraisals

Officers provided updates for Romford, Rainham, and Gidea Park, with members noting that Romford would undergo the most extensive changes. Rainham was to include the entire garden, and Gidea Park was to include shops to the south. It was noted that the last review had taken place in 2008 and the plan would be to update all eleven conservation areas, however, the service could only start with the initial three due to resource pressures. Consultation events had been held for each area and twenty-one formal responses had been received. Historic England had expressed support for the proposed changes.

Members raised concerns regarding the consultation process as they felt that the National Trust and Rainham Hall residents had not been adequately consulted. Officers explained that efforts had been made through communications and emails but building occupiers had not been directly informed. It was noted that there was no statutory requirement to notify occupiers unless they would be part of a new boundary.

The committee discussed what challenges the Council would face with enforcement challenges, particularly regarding neglected buildings. Officers expressed that limited resources hindered proactive enforcement and intervention powers were made more difficult due to costs and ownership issues with priority was generally given to listed buildings and those in severe disrepair.

Officers agreed to update the Sub-Committee outside of the meeting on an issue relating to 23-25 High Street not being listed as ‘for improvement’ and an issue relating to shop frontages and street lighting, in consultation with the environment team.

The Sub-Committee agreed the following recommendation to Cabinet:

·       That any home owner whose property will be moved into a conservation area should be communicated with to explain how the change will affect them and any requirements they have to comply with.

Report attached.

The committee received a report on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

CIL was introduced in Havering in 2019 and since then had raised £9.98 million, with £7.71 million having been allocated to various borough-wide projects. It was noted that the infrastructure planning team managed the collection, bidding, and allocation of any CIL funds, including the transfer of Mayoral CIL to the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Members were updated on the CIL bidding process which began with officer submissions, followed by Cabinet member sponsorship, Council leadership review, and final Cabinet approval. Previously meetings were held on an ad hoc basis, however, the process had moved to twice-yearly meetings to align with capital spending cycles.

Members raised concerns regarding missed CIL contributions from significant developments in Zone B. It was explained by officers that although charges increased with inflation, only three main rates applied, and any new rates would require viability assessments. Unspent funds were tracked and could be returned to the main CIL pot if not they were not committed to any project.

The Sub-Committee discussed the need for greater transparency and involvement of Ward Councillors in CIL spending decisions. While a “ward allowance” from unallocated CIL was considered, members raised concerns about how it would be fairly split across the Borough and whether the total amount would be diluted too much per ward as to make the final allocation ineffective. It was confirmed that 15% of CIL funds constituted neighbourhood CIL, while 80% was restricted to physical infrastructure.

Officers agreed to provide the infrastructure funding statement up to March 2025 with a report to be brought back to a future meeting in line with the budget setting process and to provide a comparison to other Boroughs on their CIL rates and any other relevant information relating to CIL

The Sub-Committee agreed the following recommendations to Cabinet:

·       That a review and benchmarking exercise should be undertaken with regards to the Charging Schedule upon completion of the IDP, and to include statistical neighbours within the benchmarking

·       A briefing note be placed in the Calendar Brief every 6 months to improve transparency and awareness for Ward Councillors on CIL decisions

·       Any CIL allocation should be stated within the financial implications for an ED or Cabinet report

·       A yearly review of the viability of agreed CIL funded projects with the first review to be completed by January 2026

·       Each future agreed project should have a suitable and variable ‘Spend-By’ date from the date the CIL is allocated

·       Ward Councillors should have a more pro-active role within the decision making process for CIL allocations