Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the membership.

1.1       It was noted that Councillor Andrew Smith had replaced Councillor Tim Mitchell.

To note any Declarations of Interest from members or officers in relation to items on the agenda.

2.1       Councillor Boothroyd declared that he is Head of Research and Psephology for Thorncliffe, whose clients are companies applying for planning permission from various local authorities. He explained that no current clients are in Westminster and if there were he would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct.

To sign the minutes of the meeting on April 15^th as a correct record of proceedings.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2015 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record of proceedings.

4.1       The Sub-Committee had before them a report setting out draft proposals for the revision of Special Policy Areas (SPAs).  The Chairman then invited initial comments from Members. 

4.2       Councillor Glanz referred to the East Marylebone SPA and commented on the significantly diminished activity for wholesale showrooms that the SPA sought to protect. He felt that as it would be difficult to continue to let premises for this use in the area that consideration should be given to either reducing the area of the SPA or even removing it altogether. He commented that it may be time for market forces to have their due influence and shape the future of East Marylebone accordingly. In terms of what could replace wholesale showrooms, he suggested that art galleries may be an example of an alternative use as such businesses were looking for additional space as they sought locations north of Oxford Street. Councillor Glanz also sought clarification in respect of loss of office space when the building was originally residential in the Core Central Activity Zone (CAZ) and in one of the Named Streets or Opportunity Areas.

4.3       Councillor Boothroyd acknowledged that wholesale showrooms were struggling in the current economic climate, however some businesses continue to survive and also attracted passing trade. He suggested reducing the SPA to an ‘H’ shape with Great Portland Street and Great Titchfield Street marking the borders. He added that there were also some vacant properties in the north area of the SPA that could be exploited. Councillor Boothroyd enquired if there was any other protection for wholesale showrooms outside the SPA. He suggested that the SPA would encourage landlords to keep rents down and prevent the number of empty shop fronts from increasing and enquired whether there was a trade body for wholesale businesses.  He also enquired whether proposals for a ‘non-immediate’ Article 4 Direction was being pursued.

4.4       Councillor Devenish felt that it would be difficult to continue with the East Marylebone SPA in view of the current economic climate and that emphasis should instead be on focusing on usages that could realistically be protected.  He also suggested that there be public consultation on what can replace wholesale showrooms. Councillor Devenish added that the overall trend in terms of national legislation was for deregulation. He sought an explanation as to how the Code of Construction Practice costs were calculated. Councillor Devenish also emphasised the importance of engaging with the estates and ensuring that the principles set out in the Leader of the Council’s vision for the West End were included in the policy.

4.5      The Chairman acknowledged that a number of wholesale showrooms had ceased trading in the East Marylebone SPA because of the challenging economic circumstances. He concurred that there should be public consultation on what could replace wholesale showrooms. He asked whether there was any other scheme that might redress the issues facing wholesale showrooms.  The Chairman also sought clarification as to whether local land and property owners had been consulted in respect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1       The Chairman introduced this item and acknowledged that basements were a significant issue for many residents in Westminster. He then invited comments from Members.

5.2       Councillor Devenish commented that he felt the wording in the policy paper was overly complex and the use of planning language made it more difficult for the public to understand. He suggested that drawings setting out the changes be produced to help make it clearer what these changes were. Councillor Devenish suggested that Communications be approached to help make the language simpler, clearer and to the point. Efforts should also be made to manage residents’ expectations as to what the revisions to basements could achieve.  Councillor Devenish, in acknowledging that basements were also a significant issue in the neighbouring Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, suggested it may be useful to invite their Chairman and officers of their Planning Committee to a future City Plan Sub-Committee meeting.

5.3       Councillor Glanz referred to the cumulative impact of basement construction on residents, particularly when multiple basement constructions were taking place on the same street at the same time and he suggested that management arrangements in terms of the works could be looked at. He also enquired whether the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s Code of Construction Practice costs were based on cost recovery.

5.4       Councillor Boothroyd stated that the fact that it could take up to three years for a basement development to be completed was a major concern to neighbours, although the Code of Construction Practice did place some control over basement developments.  He suggested that the requirement that a detailed structural methodology statement and appropriate certification by a suitably qualified engineer be tightened so that it must be independently assessed by an engineer rather than an applicant appointing their own engineer. Councillor Boothroyd also agreed that drawings could be useful in explaining the basements revisions.

5.5       The Chairman referred to the problems generated by there being multiple basement constructions on the same street at the same time and that this could also give rise to issues such as water tables. The Chairman added that there were many cases where basement developments had not proceeded despite planning permission being given over 18 months before, and this could sometimes exacerbate the impact, particularly if when construction finally commenced, other newer permissions were also being built. The Chairman welcomed the future publication of the revised policy on basements which would show proactive steps the Council was making to address this issue. He added that residents were expecting to see the revised basement policy before the end of 2015.

5.6       In reply to the issues raised, Lisa Fairmaner acknowledged the need to present a clear message as to what the proposed revised basement policy meant and a press release had been agreed with Communications. She stated that a requirement to appoint an independent engineer in respect of the providing a detailed structural methodology statement and appropriate certification would bring about additional costs. However, it was expected that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.