Skip to main content

Agenda item

Update from Cabinet Members

Written updates from the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, the Cabinet Member for City Management and Customer Services and the Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking - To Follow.                   

 

Question And Answer session at the meeting with the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, Councillor Robert Davis MBE DL

Minutes:

 

4.1       The Committee received written updates from the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, the Cabinet Member for City Management and Customer Services and the Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking on significant matters within their portfolios.  

 

4.2       The Chairman welcomed Councillor Robert Davis and Councillor Melvyn Caplan to the meeting.  The Committee firstly put questions to and received responses from Councillor Davis on a number of matters that were relevant to the Built Environment portfolio.  These included the following topics:

 

·           The Cabinet Member was asked whether there had been an impact on the Council as a result of Westminster’s Community Infrastructure Levy (‘CIL’) being implemented in 2016 rather than the earliest possible date which was April 2015.  Councillor Davis replied that he had signed the Cabinet Member Report approving the Charging Schedule for CIL and subject to Council’s approval on 20 January this would be introduced on 1 May 2016.  It was the case that the ability to use section 106 planning obligations for public infrastructure projects had been lost in April 2015.  However, what was gained under section 106 planning obligations and would be potentially lost or reduced in the event the CIL Charging Schedule was implemented would be contributions towards affordable housing.  The developers could potentially state that they had a compulsory obligation to pay the CIL charge and would not be able to afford a significant contribution towards affordable housing.  Whilst the Council had therefore lost out on infrastructure payments with the CIL Charging Schedule not being implemented until 1 May subject to Council’s approval, there had been a gain in affordable housing contributions which would be squeezed when the Council implemented a CIL. 

·           Members requested that their appreciation for officers’ organisation of the London Lumiere Festival held the previous weekend be formally recorded in the minutes.  Councillor Davis was asked for his view of the event and whether there were any plans to have a similar Festival in the future.  Councillor Davis thanked Richie Gibson and his team for their efforts over the four days, including managing the sizeable crowds.  He agreed with the Chairman that it had been particularly positive that young families had attended and enjoyed the Festival.  He added that discussions were taking place about potentially holding a similar event in a couple of years’ time.

·           In response to a question on Crossrail Line 2, the Cabinet Member advised that it was at any early stage of the scheme’s promotion.  The route had not been finalised.  However, it had been made clear to those involved with the project that protecting residential amenity, the operation of businesses and protection of the local environment in Soho Square, the Victoria area and Shaftesbury Avenue was high on Westminster’s list of priorities.

·           Councillor Davis was asked what profit had been made from the giant advert calendar at Marble Arch which had been a partnership between the Council and Samsung and also whether there was the potential to have something at this location which was even more in the spirit of Christmas.  He replied that the total profit was £100K and it assisted towards the Council’s income target.  It had been the first year of the promotion and it was intended that more time would be devoted to it, leading to a competitive bidding process if the Council was to proceed with a similar project at this location again.  The Cabinet Member and officers had negotiated strongly to ensure that Samsung produced an appropriate advent calendar as part of their advertising.

·           The concern was expressed that the Paddington Tower or Shard planning application was moving too quickly towards the 8 March 2016 meeting without the necessary public consultation given the significance of the application and the impact it would have on the area.  Councillor Davis replied that it was for officers to decide the timetable for when applications were brought to the Planning Applications Committees.  It had been scheduled for 8 March and he was content to consider it with his colleagues then.  He disputed that there had not been an appropriate public consultation period.  Hundreds of letters and e-mails had been received by the Council.  John Walker, Director of Planning, added that people had been given double the length of the normal consultation period to comment on the application.  Even after the formal consultation period ended, people would be able to submit representations up until the meeting currently scheduled for 8 March.  The developer had also undertaken a consultation prior to submitting the application.  It was possible that when the application reached the Planning Applications Committee, Members would decide that they would not be able to determine the application then and seek further information.  

·           The Cabinet Member was asked to explain the justification for Churchill Gardens Estate being designated as a fringe zone for the purposes of the CIL Charging Schedule in contrast to elsewhere in Pimlico.  Councillor Davis responded that this point had been put before a public inquiry and the inspector in his report had found that there was no justification to change the designation.  He added that it reflected that if there was development within the Estate the amount of CIL charged would be less than other parts of Pimlico due to the different values of property.  The aim was to encourage development rather than discourage it.

·           The question was put to the Cabinet Member whether the Council would be involved in the Queen’s 90th birthday celebrations, including assisting local groups with the setting up of street parties.  He replied that Westminster’s proposals for the celebrations were currently being considered.  The Special Events Team would be assisting at the big event at The Mall.

 

4.3      Councillor Caplan was in attendance at the meeting and advised the Chairman that he was available to answer questions should Members of the Committee require clarification on any matters relating to the City Management and Customer Services portfolio.  Members raised the following matters:

 

·           The Committee congratulated all those involved with the New Year’s Eve Clean-up and requested that this was recorded in the minutes.  Councillor Caplan was asked to provide reassurance that all the necessary arrangements were in place should there be significant snowfall in the borough.  He explained that as part of the Winter Service Plan the Council was well prepared and there were sufficient supplies to mitigate the impacts of a period of adverse weather conditions.  If there was exceptional winter weather the Council had quick access to additional supplies.

·           Councillor Caplan advised in respect of the Customer Contact Centres that a lot of analysis had been carried out and it had been found that a significant number of phone calls received relating to housing repairs for the out of hours service were not an emergency.  The aim was to prioritise those calls that were indeed an emergency and make sure all calls were received by the correct service.

·           Councillor Caplan was asked whether the waste collection vehicles ran on diesel or petrol.  He replied that they ran on diesel.  As the contract with Veolia comes up for renewal, the intention would be that the new fleet would be environmentally friendly in terms of air quality.  The advice received previously by the Council had been that diesel was the best option available.  

·           Clarification was sought on the Council’s approach to Twitter.  The Cabinet Member stated that the Council was becoming actively engaged in responding to tweets that were being received as it was considered to be a legitimate and widely used social media.  There needed to be a balance so that the Council was able to respond to Twitter to assist its residents but not enter into extensive communications that were not of benefit to residents.

·           The Cabinet Member was asked for an update on claims that had been made under the Highways Act in the last twelve months.  In addition to being asked about how many claims had been received, information was sought on how many cases went to trial and what figure was paid out by the local authority.  Councillor Caplan assured Members that the figures for these were very low.  One of the reasons for this was that pavements were inspected regularly and if necessary repaired on a timely basis.  The exact figures would be provided to the Committee.

 

4.4       ACTION: The following action arose:

 

·           That the Cabinet Member for City Management and Customer Services provide the Committee with the figures for the number of claims made under the Highways Act, the number of cases that go to trial and how much has been paid out by the local authority (Jonathan Rowing, Head of Road Management).

 

4.5       RESOLVED: That the contents of the Cabinet Member Updates be noted.

 

Supporting documents: