To receive declarations by members and officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.
Minutes:
2.1 Councillor Davis declared that any members of the Majority Party who had or would make representations on the applications on the agenda were his friends. He also advised that in his capacity as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning it was inevitable that part of his role that he gets to know, meet and talk to leading members of the planning and property industry including landowners and developers and their professional teams such as architects, surveyors, planning consultants, lawyers and public affairs advisers as well as residents, residents associations and amenity groups. It was his practice to make such declarations. He stated that it did not mean that they were his personal friends or that he had a pecuniary interest but that he had worked with them in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Planning.
2.2 He also explained that all four members of the committee are provided a week before the meeting with a full set of papers including a detailed officer’s report on each application together with bundles of every single letter or email received in respect of every application including all letters and emails containing objections or giving support. Members of the committee read through everything in detail prior to the meeting – often taking a whole day over the weekend to do so.
2.3 Accordingly, if an issue or comment made by a correspondent is not specifically mentioned at the meeting in the officers presentation or by members of the committee, because of the need to get through a long agenda, it does not mean that members have ignored the issue as they will have read about it and comments made by correspondents in the papers read prior to the meeting.
2.4 Councillor Davis stated that in his capacity as Cabinet Member he knows a number of Planning Consultants in Westminster, some of whom were representing the applicants on a number of items of the agenda, including Four Communications, DP9, Savills and Gerald Eve.
2.5 Councillor Davis made the following declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Item 1: He knew the Architect and Director of the agents, Gerald Eve. He also had meetings with the applicants.
Item 2: He knew Directors of the agents, Gerald Eve and Directors of the applicant, Derwent. He also knew one of the applicants.
Item 3: He knew Directors of the agents DP9 and Mr Jeremy King, the proposed operator. He once knew a previous occupier of the property.
Item 4: He knew Directors of the applicants, Land Securities. He had attended a site visit and sat when the application had been considered previously.
Items 5 and 6: He knew Directors of the agents, DP9 and the applicants Taylor Wimpey. He had sat on the Committee before when one of these premises was considered.
Item 7: The premises were in his ward and he knew the Architect.
Item 8: He knew one of the objectors.
Item 9: The application was in his ward and he knew Mr Zamit of SEBRA and had met the applicant.
2.6 Councillor Tim Mitchell declared that any members of the Majority Party who had or would make representations on the applications on the agenda were his friends. He also advised that in his capacity as a Ward Councillor for St James’s he has regular contact with landowners, developers and their agents on proposals which included some of the developers who had applications on the committee’s agenda including Gerald Eve, Four Communications and DP9.
Item 4: The application was in his ward and he had attended the site visit and sat when the application was considered previously. He knew staff at Land Securities and some of the objectors.
Items 5 & 6: He had sat when the application was considered previously and attended the public exhibition.
2.7 Councillor Susie Burbridge declared that any members of the Majority Party who had or would make representations on the applications on the agenda were her friends. She also declared that she has received hospitality from developers, planners, consultants, architects, landowners and persons with planning interests as well as residents and amenity groups. Items 7 and 8 were in her ward and she had attended the site visit relating to Item 4.
2.8 Councillor David Boothroyd declared that he is the Head of Research and Psephology for Indigo Public Affairs, trading as Thorncliffe, whose clients are companies applying for planning permission from various local authorities. No current clients are in Westminster, if there were he would be precluded from working on them under the company’s Code of Conduct. He does not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams.
He was aware that some clients have hired planning consultants who are also representing applicants tonight: Gerald Eve on Items 1, 2 and 4, DP9 on Items 3, 5 and 6, and Savills on Item 7. There is no financial link between the planning consultants and his employers.
The applicants on Item 4 are Land Securities who are current clients of Thorncliffe but only in relation to a site in Worcester. The applicants on Items 5 and 6 are Taylor Wimpey who are past clients of Thorncliffe. One of the representations on Item 6 is from L&Q Group who are current clients of Thorncliffe in respect of a development site in Tower Hamlets.
He was a member of previous committees deciding applications relevant to Items 1, 3, 5 and 6.