Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
2.1 Councillor Gotz Mohindra explained that a week before the meeting, all six Members of the Committee were provided with a full set of papers including a detailed officer’s report on each application; together with bundles of every single letter or e-mail received in respect of every application, including all letters and e-mails containing objections or giving support. Members of the Committee read through everything in detail prior to the meeting. Accordingly, if an issue or comment made by a correspondent was not specifically mentioned at this meeting in the officers’ presentation or by Members of the Committee, it did not mean that the issue had been ignored. Members will have read about the issue and comments made by correspondents in the papers read prior to the meeting.
2.2 Councillor Mohindra then made the following declarations as they related to the agenda:
Item 1: That he had several business interests which rented in the area which the planning application site were located.
Item 3: That he had attended a pre-application meeting with Council officers.
Item 3: That he was a former member of the Arts Club which was adjacent to the site.
2.3 Councillor David Boothroyd declared that he is Head of Research and Psephology for Thorncliffe, whose clients are companies applying for planning permission from various local authorities. No current schemes are in Westminster; if there were he would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct. Some Thorncliffe clients have also engaged planning consultants who are separately representing the applicants at the meeting, these being: Gerald Eve on item 1, DP9 on item 3, and Savills on item 4. However, Councillor Boothroyd stated that he did not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams, and planning consultants are not themselves clients.
In respect of Item 2, he was the Ward Councillor and had met some individuals who had made representation when a previous application was being considered. A representation has been made by Cllr Adam Hug, who was a friend.
In respect of Item 4, he was a member of previous committees deciding applications on this site.
2.4 Councillor Murad Gassanly declared that he was a Deputy Cabinet Member for Housing and had an indirect interest in respect to Item 2. Councillor Gassanly advised that if granted the built-out proposal would fall under the ‘Affordable Housing’ Portfolio. Councillor Gassanly advised that he had no previous involvement with this application, the proposed development fell within the ambit of a separate Portfolio, and that he was not involved in any of the discussions of Cabinet Reports which mentioned the proposal. Legal advice was taken, and the Chairman clarified that for Council-own applications all councillors are likely to have an indirect interest as the ultimate beneficiary of such schemes will be the Council (as a whole) and its residents.
2.5 Councillor Peter Freeman declared a conflict of interest in respect of items 4 and advised that he was the Chairmen of Chesterfield Lodge. Councillor Freeman withdrew from the Meeting whilst the Application was being considered.
Publication date: 04/10/2019
Date of decision: 24/09/2019
Decided at meeting: 24/09/2019 - Planning (Major Applications) Sub-Committee