Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment presenting for approval a guidance note advising developers how to carry out Health Impact Assessments on developments with planning applications.

Officers introduced the report by highlighting that an important step forward had been made by London Plan and also the latest version of the City Plan to introduce this requirement that developers should submit Health Impact Assessments when submitting planning applications. This item elaborated on this policy commitment and set out within a guidance note the detailed nature in which they ought to submit these. Officers went on to highlight that this was a proportionate response and that, whilst developers were required to submit an assessment, the degree of detail required was proportionate to the complexity of the case. A table within the report set out how developers could either submit a desktop assessment, a more elaborate, rapid assessment or a yet more elaborate full assessment. Officers explained that the thresholds set out within this table were indictive and that it was likely that, if a case were small but complex, developers would still be required to submit a more complex Health Impact Assessment. Finally, Officers stated that the list on page 241 of the agenda pack referred to the Building Research Establishment methodology but it was recognised that there were other methodologies such as the WELL standard and it was therefore felt that these should not be excluded should developers wish to use these. Officers therefore undertook to add a row to this checklist to encourage developers to use other methodologies besides BREEAM if they so wished.

A Member noted that the checklist included a question as to whether the proposal improved indoor/outdoor sports facilities which he welcomed but he stated that he was of the view that he felt that the Health Impact Assessment should go further and specify that these sports facilities should be made public.

Another Member commented on the document’s reference to canteen facilities with healthy food options but underlined that these could encourage staff to eat at their desks and not leave the office meaning that they got less exercise and also resulting in a loss of custom for local retailers and a loss of vibrancy at street level. In response to this, Officers suggested that they add a sentence to stress that the encouragement for canteen facilities which encourage healthy lifestyles. The Member went on to question the view on office developments not providing canteen facilities which would be a means of encouraging staff out of the office to use local sandwich bars and eat outdoors for example. Officers took this point and underlined that this process was all about encouraging healthy lifestyles and behaviours.

A Member reported that the Health and Wellbeing Board had already had the benefit of reviewing a draft of this document and questioned whether it would now return to this forum for final sign off. The Board had recommended that the London Borough of Hackney also be asked to comment on this and the Members questioned whether this had happened to date. She went on to seek greater clarity on the need for ‘HIA’s to include a recommendation to carry out future monitoring of the health impacts that result from the development proposal, so that corrective action could be taken to address any unforeseen impacts’. She questioned how this would be enforced and monitored – whether a developer would be asked to reinvest if their health benefits did not come to fruition for example. She stated that this was a very open-ended statement at present. Officers reported that, at this stage, there was no enforcement or monitoring mechanism in place and that this was the first stage in a policy innovation process in encouraging developers to address this issue through the planning application process. If they did address it through the planning application process and then constructed the scheme as proposed, this would lead to health benefits. This was therefore felt to be a positive step forward which would lead to healthier lifestyles within the City. With regard to consultation with Hackney, the Officer undertook to respond to the Member directly on this matter outside of the meeting. The Member responded to state that if the purpose of this was to deliver real change and health benefits then this monitoring and enforcement would really need to be cemented in going forward. The Chair agreed with this point and asked that Officers now give some further thought to this and how this sentence might be strengthened prior to finalising the document. The Member thanked Officers for this but underlined that additional resources would also need to be identified for this purpose.

Another Member questioned whether an outturn report of sorts could be considered as part of the monitoring process and the responsibilities of developers. He went on to speak on wider engagement and questioned whether there was a guidance note on how this should be undertaken given that this Committee were frequently hearing applicants criticised for failing to have done this sufficiently. He went on to state that he could see no reason why the City could not also develop its own guidance on this. The Chair recognised that the Member was making a wider point here and asked Officers to circulate a note to the Committee regarding the Statement of Community Involvement and other matters in terms of the Engagement Strategy.

RESOLVED – That Members approve the Health Impact Assessment Guidance Note (Appendix 1) subject to the inclusion of the points discussed above.