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 Robert 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 got 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 Councillor Davis 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. 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 did not mean that Members had ignored the issue as they will have read about it and comments made by correspondents in the papers read prior to the meeting.
2.3 Councillor Davis also declared that in his capacity as the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment with specific responsibility for planning he regularly meets 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 Act Guidance document “A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act”. Councillor Davis added that the meetings held with applicants and in some case objectors too were without prejudice and all parties were advised that a final formal decision was only taken when all the facts were before him and his Committee through the normal planning application process.
2.4 Councillor Davis wished to declare that in his capacity as Cabinet Member he knew a number of the directors of planning consultancy companies in Westminster. The planning consultancy companies were representing the applicants on a number of items on the current agenda, including Four Communications, Belgrave, DP9, Savills, Gerald Eve and Rolfe Judd.
2.5 Councillor Davis then made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Item 1: That he knew the directors of Grosvenor Estate and had received hospitality from them on previous occasions and knew the directors of Gerald Eve.
Item 2: That he knew the directors of the applicant, Grosvenor Estate, had met with them and had received previous hospitality from them, knew some objectors who had made representations and had received previous hospitality from some of them, and knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, Gerald Eve.
Item 3: That he knew the directors of the applicant, Howard de Walden Estate Ltd, had received hospitality from them and had meetings with them in respect of this application
Item 4: That he knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, DP9, had met the applicant in respect of this application and knew the directors of Four Communications who had advised the applicant.
Item 5: That he had met the applicant and knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, DP9 and the directors of Four Communications who had advised the applicant.
Item 6: That he had previously been a patient of The Wellington Hospital, had met the applicant and knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, Rolfe Judd.
Item 7: That he had met the applicant and knew the directors of the applicant’s agent and the directors of Four Communications who had represented the applicant.
Item 8: That he had sat on the Committee that had considered a previous applicationand he knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, Savills, the directors of Four Communications who had represented the applicant and Oliver Gardiner who had been advising the applicant.
Item 9: That he knew the applicant, Alchemi Group and had meetings with them, knew the directors of the applicant’s agent and the directors of Four Communications who had advised the applicant.
Item 10: That he knew the directors of the applicant, The King’s Fund, had met with them, knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, Savills, Councillor Ian Bott who had objected to the application, and the directors of Belgrave who represented the applicant.
Item 11: That he had sat on the Committee that had considered a previous application, knew the directors of the applicant, CapCo, had met with them and received previous hospitality from them and knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, Gerald Eve and Four Communications who had advised the applicant.
Item 12: That he had sat on the Committee that had considered a previous application, had met the applicant concerning the previous application and knew the directors of the applicant’s agent, DP9.
Item 13: That he knew the directors of British Land and had received previous hospitality from them.
Item 14: That he knew the General Manager of Connaught Hotel, had received previous hospitality from the hotel, knew Michael Blair of Blair Associates Architecture Ltd, the applicant’s agent and had sat on the Committee that had considered an application for a different tree on this site before.
2.6 Councillor Tim Mitchell declared that any Members of the Majority Party who had or would make representations in respect of the applications on the agenda were his friends. He also advised that in his capacity as a Councillor for St James’s Ward, and as Cabinet Member for Finance responsible for the City Council’s property portfolio, he regularly met with members of the planning and property industry as well as residents’ associations and amenity groups. He also knew planning consultancy companies that were representing the applicants on a number of items on the current agenda, including DP9, Savills, Four Communications and Gerald Eve.
2.7 Councillor Mitchell then made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Item 8: That he had sat on the Committee that had considered a previous application.
Item 9: That the site was in his Ward and that he had received a presentation from the applicant prior to the submission of their application.
Item 11: That the site was in his Ward, he knew senior members of staff of the applicant and had received a presentation from the applicant prior to the submission of their application.
Item 12: That he had sat on the Committee that had considered a previous application.
2.8 Councillor Susie Burbridge declared that any Members of the Majority Party and Minority Party who had or would make representations on the applications on the agenda were her friends. She advised that she was Deputy Cabinet Member for Housing, Business and Economic Regeneration.
2.9 Councillor Burbridge made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Items 8, 11, 13 and 14: That she had sat on the Committee that had considered previous applications on these sites.
2.9 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 clients are in Westminster, and if there were, he would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct.
2.10 Councillor Boothroyd further declared that some Thorncliffe clients have engaged planning consultants who are also representing the applicants at the meeting: Quod on item 1, Gerald Eve on items 2 and 11, DP9 on items 4, 5 and 12, Rolfe Judd Planning on item 6 and Savills on items 8 and 10. However, he advised that he does not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams, and there is no financial link between the planning consultants and his employers.
2.11 Councillor Boothroyd also declared that he had sat on previous committees considering applications on the sites of items 1, 3, 7 and 8 on the agenda.
2.12 Councillor Boothroyd then made the following further declarations as they related to the specific applications on the agenda:
Items 1 and 2: That he is a friend of the three councillors for Churchill Ward, Councillors Jason Williams, Shamim Talukder and Murad Gassanly, who have mentioned the application as a planning issue of local concern.
Items 3 and 5: That he is a friend of Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg who has forwarded some objection letters from local residents.
Items 4, 8, 11, 12 and 14: That he had sat on the committees considering previous applications on these sites.