Agenda and draft minutes

To report any changes to the membership.

1.1       That Councillor Elizabeth Hitchcock had replaced Councillor Jim Glen on the                Planning Applications Sub-Committee (1). Councillor Jim Glen had replaced                  Councillor Mark Shearer on the Planning Major Applications Sub-Committee.

1.2       There were no further changes to the membership.

1.3       The Chair thanked Councillor Mark Shearer for his work and contribution             towards the Planning Major Applications Sub-Committee.

To receive and record declarations of interest.

2.1       There were no declarations of interest.

To sign the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record of proceedings.

Matters Arising from the Minutes

3.1       Agreed that the minutes of the Planning & City Development Committee held   on 27 April 2023 were a true record of the proceedings.

3.2       Matters arising from the Minutes.

3.2.1    Minutes 3.2 – Minutes 3.2.2 Minutes 4 Planning Application And Appeals                 Performance Mid-Year Updated 4.3.3.

3.2.1(i) The Committee were reminded that the Pre-Application fees costings had                  been circulated to Members and included information regarding previous                  charges and the increases to fees during the past two-year period.

3.2.2    Minutes 3.2 – Minutes 3.2.3 Minutes 5 Amendments to Sub-Committee Late            Representations Procedure 5.7.6

3.2.2(i) The Committee were informed that Members Services ensured that support       is provided to Councillors with additional needs or any other impairments and     that all reasonable adjustments are made to enable individuals to perform           their roles effectively. Members were advised that Members Services should             be contacted about support that is available and that an email had been                     circulated to the Committee on how to request for assistance.

3.2.3    Minutes 3.2 – 8.1.9 National Planning Consultations Update.

3.2.3(i) Members were advised that the consultations response regarding short term             lets had been circulated to the Committee.

3.2.3(ii)Members were informed that no response had been received from the               Secretary of State regarding the letter sent by the Cabinet Member for                 Planning and Economic Development on 5 July 23.

3.2.4    Minutes 3.2 – Minutes 3.2.4 Minutes 7.1 – Any Other Business Which the          Chair Considers Urgent.

3.2.4(i)Members requested that the Secretary of State letter regarding the M&S                       Marble Arch Branch, 472 Oxford Street, be circulated to the Committee.         Members agreed that the letter gave a good insight regarding how decisions                    by their Sub-Committees are perceived by the Independent Planning          Inspectors and Central Government.

3.2.4(ii)The Committee agreed that future discussions be held on what protocols            should be adopted for making deputations at their Sub-Committees and this                   be included as an Agenda Item at their next Meeting. Members noted that at                      current they were required to leave the Sub-Committee after making their     deputations and this was to prevent any covert influence from occurring.

4.1      The Committee received a report which provided an annual update on the                  performance of the Town Planning service in terms of the timeliness and            quality of its planning application decision making. The performance of the                 department over the period between April 2022 and March 2023 continues to   exceed the required performance thresholds set by the Department for                        Levelling Up, Homes and Communities (DLUHC).

4.2       Members held a discussion and noted the following: -

4.2.1   The Committee noted that the Borough had twice the number of minor               planning applications in comparison to other London Planning Authorities (LPAs). Officers advised that some planning applications were duplicated, and this was due to them also requiring listed building consent and reminded members that a large area of the Central Activity Zone was based within the Westminster and this geographical area generated a high number of planning applications. The Committee were informed that a large proportion of these applications were commercially based.

4.2.2   Members noted that the number of major planning applications had fallen in    comparison to previous years and were informed that this was attributed to                 several factors which included current cost of funding, viability of build cost for            large schemes and uncertainty around the market. The Committee were            informed that the type and scale of major applications vary significantly across different London LPAs and therefore it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the Boroughs.

4.2.3   Members requested that future charts which compares the speed of major application decision making with other Inner London Local Planning                      Authorities be over a period of 12 months rather than 24 months.

4.2.4   The Committee were informed that several London LPAs used tools such as                       Extensions of Times (EOTs) and PPAs more routinely to assist them in managing the determination of planning applications and reduce their planning applications backlog. These tools aid LPAs in meeting targets in relation to  the speed of decision making, but do not deliver a decision prior to the initially set statutory decision date. Officers advised the Committee that current figures regarding the speed of decision making in comparison to other London LPAs were not of concern and that there was a continual drive to improve the Town Planning Service performance. Members noted that making direct comparisons with other London LPAs was difficult as each Borough was unique, and the complexity of their planning applications differed. The number of objections received regarding individual applications were also unique in addition to the number of amendments which are made to these schemes. These factors all have a bearing on the speed of decision making and could elongate the process.

4.2.5    Members requested that future statistics regarding timeliness of decision                     making include the mean and the range on how long it takes to process         planning applications and reasons be given on why they were delayed.

RESOLVED

1.     That the contents of the report be noted and the ongoing overall good performance of the Town Planning service in terms of its determination of planning applications in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1       The Committee received a report which provided an overview of the appeals process and an update on planning appeals received during the last financial                      year, including an overview of success rate of planning appeals and analysis                       of any notable and allowed appeals and trends.

5.2       Members held a discussion and noted the following: -

5.2.1   Members agreed that future statistics regarding appeal performances over a            certain period should also include figures of the previous year. The                   Committee agreed that this would aid in assessing the performance of the     Service Area and identifying any trends.

5.2.2   The Committee agreed that a guidance on advertisement consent applications should be devised and commented that the guide would be helpful to both Planning Inspectors and Members. Members commented that the Westminster has unique characteristics, and this should be communicated to Inspectors.

5.2.3    Members noted that any refusals of planning applications made at their Sub-            Committees must be based on strong planning grounds and that advice and guidance should be sought from the Presiding Officer when making these decisions. The Committee noted that a total of three appeals were allowed which related to decisions made at their Sub-Committee and acknowledged that this was a good indicator that the majority of decisions made by these bodies were robust.

5.2.4   The Committee noted that the Planning Inspectors decisions regarding appeals should be read and that these case studies were instructive on how Inspectors interpret the development plan policies. Members commented that this information would also be useful to officers.

5.2.5   Officers advised that the majority of appeals failed, and these included decisions made by planning committees and under delegated authority. This is a universal trend across all LPAs. Members were informed that decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate could be at odds with their interpretation of the development plan policies and this could either be resolved by amending policy or it be acknowledged that certain appeal decisions can be anomalous and an outlier to the prevailing interpretation of a particular policy. Officers commented that increase costs would be incurred in areas of conflict.

5.2.6   Members noted that the grounds of refusal on planning applications which          was determined by the Planning (Major) ApplicationsSub-Committee had been withdrawn during the subsequent Public Inquiry and were advised that such an occurrence was not unique. Officers informed that these actions normally take place when the reasons for a decision to refuse permission are deconstructed during the cross examination of witnesses by appellants legal representatives at appeal. The Committee noted this but commented on the importance of the sovereignty of the Planning Committees.

5.2.7    Members thanked Officers for the report. 

RESOLVED

1.     That the contents of the report be noted and the overall good performance of the Town Planning service in defending decisions to refuse permission at appeal.

2.     That future statistics regarding appeal performances over a set period also include the figures of the previous year.

3.     That the Committee receive a briefing paper detailing how decisions for reasons of refusals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Planning & City Development Committee to receive a verbal update on the Design Review Panel.

6.1        The Committee received a verbal update regarding the recent creation of the        Westminster Design Review Panel (DRP). Members were advised that the Chairs of the DRP were interviewed and appointed on 23 May and were involved in the selection process alongside officers in the recruitment of panel members. There are 31 DRP members in total and over 250 applications were received for the Panel. The DRP’s first virtual introductory meeting was attended by the majority of panel members and an induction event was scheduled to take place in September. The Committee was advised that they could also attend the induction event. The first Panel is scheduled to take place during the Autumn.

6.2        The Committee noted that the DRP membership had attracted attention from           the press, and it had been commented that it’s make up comprised of highly        experienced professionals and talented individuals from the planning industry.               The Committee were advised that the calibre of members was extremely high              and included individuals from a wide background which included, age, skills,          and experience. Members commented on the importance that members of the               Panel are locally based and them possessing a good knowledge of the Borough. Officers advised that members of the Panel had good                      experience of Westminster and some were involved in local community groups. The Committee were reminded that the Borough had a rich plethora of Amenity Societies and Neighbourhood Forums and these bodies ensured that local needs were represented. The Committee were informed that work would continue to ensure that communities are able to share their design expertise. The Panel’s webpage will be launched after the biographies of its members have been finalised.

6.3      Members were advised that the recommendations of the Panel would be               included in reports of their Sub-Committees. At current there is no defined     timeline when this would occur as this would be dependent on when a               planning application is considered by the DRP and then brought to a Sub-         Committee for determination. Officers advised that the DRPs would have a   positive impact on the planning decision process and that the Committee              would be kept abreast of any updates in particular what applications are            directed to the Panel. This could be referrals from Officers or direct request               made by applicants planning agents. Members were informed that the DRP is              a self-funding initiative and that developers / applicants would be required to     pay a fee for the service. This is the usual practise in place at other LPAs who   have DRPs. The fee structures for the DRP are published on the Councils       website.

6.4      Officers advised that a review of the DRP would take place and commented         that the Panel’s work needed to be embedded first. The Committee was               advised that an independent assessment of the Panel would be undertaken and that its usage by the planning community would also be used as an               indicator regarding its effectiveness.

6.5         The website also contains information regarding the Terms of Reference,           purpose and how the Panel operates. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Planning & City Development Committee to receive a verbal update.

7.1       The Committee received a verbal update regarding their Constitution.               Members was advised that the role of the Planning & City Development Committee was currently being reviewed on whether it should continue to                 meet in its current format. Officers advised that a briefing paper which details    various options regarding possible formats was being drafted and would also           include a review of the Terms of Reference of both the P&CD and its Sub-                Committees. The briefing paper would be circulated to Members and would                  provide the basis for discussions regarding the proposed options. Officers                      advised that the P&CD Committee was the parent body of the Sub-                Committees, and this was not reflected in the Terms of Reference, and this                would also be addressed in the paper.  

·       Biodiversity Net Gain

·       Advertisements

8.1       The Committee received a report which outlined all the training which             members of the Planning Applications Sub-Committees had undertaken to date in 2023 and training topics which was to be covered later in the year.             Members noted that training on the appeals process and advertisement consent applications would take place in October. Officers commented that there was uncertainty on how Central Government wanted to secure Biodiversity Net Gain and that training would be arranged once the subject matter had been confirmed. The Committee requested that their induction with members of the DRP be included in the training scheduled. Members were reminded that they could forward request for training on topics of their choice. 

RESOLVED

That the Planning & City Development Committee induction with members of the Design Review Panel be included in the Training Scheduled.

9.1       The Chair thanked the Committee for their attendance at the meeting with the    Westminster Property Association (WPA). The Committee was informed that   the meeting with the Association was useful and provided a good opportunity to obtain the viewpoints of its members and their concerns. The next meeting   with the WPA is scheduled to take place in the Spring of 2024. The      Committee noted that individual Members received invitations from         developers and were reminded to forward enquires from these cohorts to        Officers and be mindful of lobbying.

9.2       The Chair commented on the Secretary of State decision regarding the M&S      Oxford Street Branch planning appeal and highlighted the role of which         heritage and sustainability featured in the decision-making. The Committee             requested that Officers provide an executive summary of the Secretary of          State Letter and Report and that the document sets out the key points.

·       1 November 2023

Wednesday 1 November