Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the membership.

1.1      Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Julia Alexander, Thomas Crockett and Cameron Thomson.

To receive declarations by members and officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.

2.1      There were no declarations of interest.

To sign the minutes of the Business, Planning and Transport Policy and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on Monday 8 May 2017.

3.1      RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Business Planning and Transport meeting held on Monday 8 May 2017 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record of proceedings.

Written updates from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Public Realm, the Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Business, Culture and Heritage (to follow) and the Cabinet Member for City Highways (to follow).

Question And Answer session at the meeting with the Cabinet Member for City Highways, Councillor Danny Chalkley.

4.1       The Committee received written updates from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Business, Culture and Heritage, the Cabinet Member for City Highways and the Cabinet Member for Planning and Public Realm on significant matters within their portfolios.  

4.2       The Chairman welcomed Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for City Highways to the meeting.  Councillor Chalkley stated that other areas that he was particularly focussing on, in addition to the topics set out in his Cabinet Member Update such as the 20mph trial, included updating the car clubs offer and responding to market changes.  He was also keen to make progress in terms of lobbying on regulating pedicabs.

4.3       The Committee put questions to and received responses from Councillor Chalkley on a number of matters that were relevant to his portfolio.  These included the following topics:

·           The Cabinet Member was asked about his rumoured plans to establish a highways panel.  He replied that he was establishing it in honour of former councillor Alan Bradley whose Council task group had previously recommended doing so.  In keeping with the recommendation, the highways panel would have some lay expertise which would scrutinise the annual highways programme.  Councillor Chalkley added that he was looking for three or four individuals who could contribute and were not councillors or currently employed by the Council.  He had written to the amenity societies to request that they put forward candidates.  One individual who had expressed an interest in scrutinising the programme was an experienced civil engineer.  

·           Councillor Chalkley was asked how much say a local forum would have in Community Infrastructure Levy (‘CIL’) money being spent on a particular street such as Great Portland Street for the annual highways programme.  It was believed that the Council managed 15% of the CIL money on the local forums’ behalf.  He replied that he would provide a written response to the question.

·           How would the success of the 20mph trial be judged?  Councillor Chalkley was also asked about the potential for residents to expect the 20mph speed limit to remain whatever the data suggested.  He responded that the primary function of the pilot was to collect data at the thirty sites.  There would be vehicle activated signs collecting the data.  Average speeds would be measured prior to the trial and also during it and an assessment would be made as to whether there had been an improvement or not.  Measuring average speeds pre-trial would provide evidence to residents as to whether the scheme was effective or not.  

·           Was it the intention for the 20mph trial to be in operation at all times, including when children were not at school?  The Cabinet Member confirmed that it would be operational at all times.  An assessment would be able to be made on a number of factors based on data from the trial.  He informed the Committee that there was a Council communications campaign being developed to notify that the pilot was taking place at the specific sites and also a dedicated website  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Report of the Head of Revenues and Benefits.

5.1       The report was introduced by Martin Hinckley, Head of Revenues & Benefits.  He stated that it covered three areas, the 2017 Business Rate (NNDR) Revaluation, the NNDR Transitional scheme and the changes announced in the Spring 2017 budget.  Generally every five years (it had been seven years since the last occasion), Central Government revalues all the properties and the rateable value which is linked to rents.  Westminster’s overall rateable value had increased by 25% at the 2017 Revaluation.  25% was the average increase with a number of individual properties increasing by over 100%.  This compared with a national average of 9%.

5.2       Mr Hinckley advised that Central Government was required when it carried out a revaluation to introduce a transitional scheme.  Previous transitional schemes had limited year one increases to 12.5%.  This year the Government had originally proposed an increase for large properties with a rateable value of over £100,000 of 45%.  There had then been lobbying by the Council and New West End Company.  The Government subsequently reduced the increase for year one to 42% and also reduced the increase from what was originally proposed in future years.

5.3       Mr Hinckley said that the Revaluation and the Government’s Transitional Relief scheme generated a significant amount of media interest relating to the negative effect on businesses in London.  The Government in the Spring Budget introduced three changes.  These were a small business rate relief support scheme, relief for all public houses with a rateable value of less than £100,000 (the Government was understood to be preparing a consultation paper on this which had been delayed due to the General Election) and the new Revaluation Discretionary Fund.  The Revaluation Discretionary Fund had been set up to support the businesses which are most affected by the revaluation.  The Council had been granted a figure of over £11m for the current year.  This funding was equal to around 0.5% of the Council’s annual NNDR collection.  Mr Hinckley believed there was likely to be a further Government response to their consultation paper published in the near future.  Officers from across the Council were working together prior to setting out how the funding would be allocated.  Officers would be talking to Business Improvement Districts (‘BIDs’), business organisations and Members.  Any views from the Committee on who should be supported under the Revaluation Discretionary Fund would be welcomed.

5.4       The Committee in considering matters relating to this topic heard evidence from Sir Peter Rogers, Chairman, New West End Company (‘NWEC’).  Sir Peter, when asked about the best way forward, recommended the proposals set out in the ‘Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance (Layfield Committee)’.  He expressed the view that the business rate tax was flawed and outdated.  Patterns of retail had changed whilst business tax remained constant. He did not believe the tax rates were fair.  They were levied on occupiers when they were already paying more through rents.  The owner was not taxed, it was the occupier.  It was not based on ability  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report of the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications.

6.1      The Committee considered the Work Programme for the next meeting on 13 September and the following meetings in 2017/18.  The ‘Building Height: Getting the Right Kind of Growth’ consultation report was currently due to be scrutinised at the next meeting on 13 September 2017.  An update on broadband coverage in Westminster was also scheduled for the September meeting.

6.2      The Committee noted that there were a number of items scheduled for the meeting on 15 November.  It was agreed that the report authors of the proposed items would be consulted as to whether the appropriate timing for the Committee to scrutinise the items would still be November.  There would also be a focus on which items would be topical at that time.  Councillor Crockett would be consulted as to whether the ‘Assets of Community Value / Pubs’ item should proceed in November.  Ms Dindjer, Policy and Scrutiny Manager, advised that there was the option for the Committee to receive written updates in respect of certain items rather than full reports to be scrutinised.

6.3      The Committee requested that the current position in respect of Nine Elms Bridge was ascertained.  Members also asked that officers monitor when it would be appropriate to scrutinise the Cycling Strategy and a review of the Cycling Superhighways.  It was agreed that any scrutiny of the night tube only took place following relevant data being received.  

6.4      The Committee expressed interest in taking forward a joint task group with the Adults, Health and Public Protection Policy and Scrutiny Committee in respect of the Evening and Night Time Economy.  This would potentially commence in the autumn.  Councillors Hyams and Williams offered to be Members of the Task Group.

6.5       ACTION: The following actions arose:

·           That the current timetable for the ‘Building Height: Getting the Right Kind of Growth’ consultation report be checked (Muge Dindjer, Councillor Daniel Astaire, Cabinet Member for Planning and Public Realm and Madeleine Hale, Senior Cabinet Officer).

·           the report authors of the proposed items for the November meeting be consulted as to whether it  was still appropriate for them to be considered then (Muge Dindjer / Jonathan Deacon).

·           Councillor Crockett would be consulted as to whether the ‘Assets of Community Value / Pubs’ item should proceed in November (Muge Dindjer / Jonathan Deacon).

·           the current position in respect of Nine Elms Bridge was ascertained (Muge Dindjer / Jonathan Deacon / Graham King, Head of WEP Place Programme).

·           that it is monitored when it would be appropriate to scrutinise the Cycling Strategy and a review of the Cycling Superhighways (Muge Dindjer / Jonathan Deacon / Stuart Love, Executive Director, City Management)

6.6      RESOLVED: That (i) the work programme be noted and actions in relation to the work programme be taken forward; and

That (ii) the action tracker be noted.

7.1       There was no additional business for the Committee to consider.

13 September 2017, 15 November 2017, 8 February 2018, 12 April 2018.

8.1      The dates of future meetings are 13 September 2017, 15 November 2017, 8 February 2018 and 12 April 2018.