Agenda item

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 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 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 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, Gerald Eve and Belgrave.

2.5       Councillor Davis made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:

            Item 1 - he has attended a meeting with the applicants and that the City Council is the freeholder of the property.

            Items 2 & 3 - he has had meetings with the applicants and in doing so has got to know its directors. He also declared that he knows the architect for the scheme and that previous applications relating to item 2 have been considered by the Sub-Committee.

            Items 4 & 5 - that he knows the directors of Almacantar, the applicants, as well as the architects for both schemes. He also declared that he has attended meetings with the applicants in relation to both sites.

            Item 6 - that the application had been considered by the Sub-Committee previously which he had chaired.

            Item 7 - that the application has been submitted by the Grosvenor Estate and that he knows directors of the Estate.

2.6       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 Gerald Eve and Four Communications. In respect of item 5 she declared that the site is located in her Ward and that she had attended a meeting with the applicants.

2.7       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 Four Communication and Belgrave Communications.

2.8       Councillor Mitchell made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda. In respect of item 1 he declared that the Council has an interest in the property. With regard to items 2, 4 & 6 he declared that the applications had been considered previously by the Sub-Committee which he had sat on. He further declared in respect of item 6 that the site is located in his ward, that he had received representations from the applicants and that he had attended a site visit prior to the submission of the application to the Council.

2.9       Councillor David Boothroyd read out the following declaration:

‘I am Head of Research and Psephology for Indigo Public Affairs, whose clients are companies applying for planning permission from various local authorities. No current clients are in Westminster; if there were I would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct. I do not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams.

I am aware that some clients have hired planning consultants who are also representing applicants tonight: DP9 on items 1 and 7, Gerald Eve on item 2, CBRE on item 5, and Bidwells on item 11. There is no financial link between the planning consultants and my employers.

On item 2, the developers Land Securities are current clients of Indigo Public Affairs but only in relation to a site in Worcester.

I have been a member of previous committees deciding applications relevant to items 4 and 7. One of the objections on item 7 is from Katharine Hoskyns, who is a friend. On item 12, I live close to the site, but where I live is not part of the Church Commissioners’ Hyde Park Estate.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should note that Indigo Planning, who are the agents on item 6, are a completely separate company.