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 Richard Beddoe 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 Chairman of 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 Chairman of Planning.
2.2 Councillor Beddoe 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 Beddoe also declared that in his capacity as Chairman of 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 Act Guidance document “A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act”. Councillor Beddoe 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 Flight declared that in her capacity as a Ward Councillor she often met with residents, residents associations, amenity societies, businesses, developers, officers, planners and other stakeholders.
2.5 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 further advised that that she did meet architects and developers from time to time but had not seen or spoken to any in relation to the applications on the agenda. With regards to the specific items on the agenda she declared in respect of item 2 she had sat on the Committee which had considered this application previously.
2.6 Councillor David Boothroyd read out the following declaration:
He was Head of Research and Psephology for Thorncliffe, whose clients were companies applying for planning permission from various local authorities. No current clients were in Westminster; if there were he would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct.
Some Thorncliffe clients had engaged planning consultants who were also representing the applicants tonight: Gerald Eve on items 1, 5 and 12, DP9 on items 2 and 6, Montagu Evans on item 3, CBRE on item 4, Bidwells on items 7 and 14, and GVA on item 11. However he do not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams, and planning consultants were not themselves clients.
On item 1, Thorncliffe submitted an unsuccessful bid to do public consultation on this project although he was not involved.
On item 2, he was a member of the committee on 20 October 2015 which considered the previous application on this site.
On item 4 he was a member of the Committee which granted the permission at Nightingale House mentioned in the report.
On item 5, he lived a short distance to the north of Marble Arch, possibly close enough to be affected by the application but not within the consultation boundary.
On item 6 he was a member of the London Library which is based in the north-western corner of St James’s Square.
On item 7 he knew some of the objectors who had written in about this application, including Karen Buck MP and Cllr Adam Hug who had forwarded objections. He had also been on various committees deciding the application to redevelop garages at Grove Hall Court.
2.7 The Design Officer, Robert Ayton, declared that in respect of Item 1 he was a member of the Victorian Society.