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 and 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 were 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 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 - often taking a whole day over the weekend to do so.
2.3 Accordingly, if an issue or comment made by a correspondent was 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 also declared that in his capacity as the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment with specific responsibility for planning he regularly met with developers as part of the City Council’s pre-application engagement with applicants. This was wholly in accordance with normal protocols and the terms set out in the Localism Act 2011 and as amplified in the Communities and Local Government Guidance document “A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act”.
2.5 The meetings held with applicants and in some case objectors too are without prejudice and all parties are advised that a final formal decision is only taken when all the facts are before him and his Committee through the normal planning application process.
2.6 He also stated that in his capacity as Cabinet Member he knew a number of Planning Consultants in Westminster, some of whom were representing the applicants on a number of items on the agenda, including Four Communications, Gerald Eve, Rolfe Judd, Belgrave and Savills.
2.7 Councillor Davis made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Item 1 - That he has had meetings with the applicants. That he knows a number of directors at Transport for London, including Sir Peter Hendy, and representatives of the applicant, CBRE.
Item 3 – That he has had meetings with the applicants and knows their representatives, Gerald Eve and also knows an objector, the Director of Somerset House
Item 4 – That he has had meetings with the applicants, knows the applicant’s architects, and DP9, their planning consultants
Item 5 – That he has had meetings with the applicants, knows the applicant’s representatives, GVA and their architects and Robin Birley who had made a representation
Item 6 – That he has had meetings with the applicants, knows the applicant’s representatives GVA, and their architects and Robin Birley who had made a representation
Item 8 – That he knows the applicant’s representatives, DP9 and architects and that he had been on the Committee that had previously considered proposals for this site
Item 9 – That he had undertaken a site visit with the headteacher
Item 10 – That he knows the applicant and frequents the restaurant
Item 12 - That he had been on the Committee that had previously considered proposals by the applicant for this site
Item 13 – That he had a meeting with the applicant.
2.8 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 had 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, Savills and Belgrave.
2.9 Councillor Mitchell made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Item 1 – That the application site is within his ward and that he had received a presentation from the applicant and representations from interested parties.
Item 3 - That the application site is within his ward and that he had received a presentation from the applicant and representations from interested parties.
Item 5 – That the application site is within his ward
Item 6 – That the application site is within his ward
Item 8 - That he had been on the Committee that had previously considered proposals by the applicant
Item 10 –That he had been on the Committee that had previously considered proposals by the applicant
Item 12 - That he had been on the Committee that had previously considered proposals by the applicant
2.10 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 declared that she is deputy Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Economic Growth. She further declared that she had met many of the developers and architects involved with applications on the agenda in her capacity as a councillor.
Councillor Burbridge also declared that she had been on the Committee that had previously considered proposals by the applicant in relation to item 8.
2.11 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 advised that no current clients are in Westminster; if there were he would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct.
2.12 Councillor Boothroyd also advised thatThorncliffe clients have hired planning consultants who are also representing applicants tonight: CBRE on item 1, DP9 on items 2, 4 and 8, Gerald Eve on item 3, and GVA on items 5, 6 and 7. However he does not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams, and there is no financial link between the planning consultants and my employers.
2.13 Councillor Boothroyd also made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Item 1 - One of the objectors is Graeme Cottam who is a friend.
Item 8 – He was a member of a previous committee deciding applications relevant to
Item 13 – He is a public member of Central and North West London NHS Trust. Cllr Barbara Grahame, who has made representations about this item, is a friend.
2.14 The design officer, Robert Ayton, in relation to item 3, declared that he is a member of SAVE British Heritage and The Victorian Society, however he had not been involved in any discussions with these organisations with regard to the application.