Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing, attached.

4.1       The Leader introduced the item and advised that whatever decision was taken at the meeting, any redevelopment would require approval by a Planning Applications Sub-Committee, following extensive consultation. The concerns raised by Huguenot House Residents’ Associations were taken seriously and residents would be engaged extensively during consultation.

4.2       Guy Slocombe, Director of Property Investments and Estates, then presented the report and stated that Huguenot House was an important Council owned asset located in a prominent location in Central London. The building was mixed use and the Council owned a number of the flats. There was an opportunity to redevelop the building in order to improve the area in social, economic and environmental terms and the report sought to seek a way forward on this.

4.3       Guy Slocombe drew Members’ attention to the various options outlined on page 13 of the report and stated that all options were examined in detail against the strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management cases for the project. He referred to the representation made by Huguenot House Residents’ Association and emphasised that any redevelopment proposals would be subject to open and transparent consultation.

4.4       Councillor Daniel Astaire, Cabinet Member for Planning and Public Realm, emphasised that it was important that any decision taken reflected the goals of City for All, particularly in respect of growth and providing more affordable housing. A number of keynote speeches had been made by the Leader and himself on this matter and it was important that the City Council took a lead in providing more affordable housing. Councillor Astaire therefore felt that Option 4A* , which proposed a mixed use of a cinema, retail, office and residential (65% private housing and 35% affordable housing)was the only option that could fully realise these objectives and that it would demonstrate a commitment to delivering more housing and in particular affordable housing.

4.5       Councillor Tim Mitchell, Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Corporate Services, stated that as Ward Councillor he acknowledged the residents of Huguenot House’s preference for Option 2. However, in terms of the options proposing redevelopment, in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Corporate Services, he felt that Option 4A* was the best option, as although it would generate less capital receipts than Option 4A, this would be outweighed by the social and economic benefits it would bring. Councillor Mitchell stated that Officers could consider if a partner could be identified to help fund Option 4A*, or whether funds could be identified from the Council’s overall budget.

4.6       Councillor Rachael Robathan, Cabinet Member for Housing, supported the comments made by Councillor Daniel Astaire and reaffirmed her commitment to providing more affordable housing.

4.7       Councillor Heather Acton, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services and Public Health, referred to comments made in the Huguenot House Residents’ Association representation in respect of faulty lifts for both the residents’ lift on the Oxendon Street side and the office lift at the Whitcomb Street entrance, fire extinguishers being removed, the feeling that the building had been purposefully neglected and claims that the car park survey had been undertaken when access to it was difficult and she sought officers’ responses to these.

4.8       Councillor David Harvey, Cabinet Member for Environment, Sports and Community, expressed concern about the effectiveness of the managing agents for Huguenot House in general and he felt that this needed to be addressed swiftly. He referred to the table in 3.6 of the report that had given Option 4A* a weight score of 0.04 for contributing to placemaking and asked how this had been calculated.

4.9       In reply to issues raised, Guy Slocombe acknowledged that the problems with the lifts were regrettable, however they were now obsolete and some of the parts were no longer manufactured. Efforts were being made to make the lifts operational again and Guy Slocombe advised that if the site was not redeveloped, then the lifts would be replaced. He informed Members that the Council was aware that the managing agents had not been up to the required standard in managing Huguenot House and a new managing agent had been appointed. However, the new managing agent had also failed to demonstrate effectiveness to date and a meeting was due to take place with them and Council officers to address this issue.

4.10    Guy Slocombe advised that a fire risk assessment undertaken in March 2017 had determined that fire extinguishers were not necessary, so these had been removed. However, fire safety measures were being considered for all of the City Council’s buildings, including Huguenot House. In respect of the car park, there had since been a further survey with results indicating that the car park is on average 25% full, with the busiest times on Saturday evening with an average peak of 50%. Guy Slocombe advised that he had met with the Managing Director of Q-Park, the company operating the car park, who had advised that the car park was not viable financially and that Q-Park would not be interested in extending its lease. Guy Slocombe advised that the contributing to placemaking score for Option 4A* in the table in 3.6 of the report was incorrect and that he would undertake to obtain the correct score which on subsequent inspection was found that it should read 1.2.

4.11    The Leader emphasised the importance of addressing issues where managing agents were failing to manage properties properly and she requested that this matter be resolved swiftly for Huguenot House. She expressed surprise at the property specialists’ comments in respect of affordable housing and emphasised the importance of using opportunities to increase affordable housing.

4.12      RESOLVED:

1.         That Appendix E to this report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3 (as amended) in that these documents contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

2.         That the Cabinet noted the content of the report and considered the early analysis of all the options so far in relation to this property.

3.         That the Cabinet noted and considered the feedback on all commercial and residential engagement and informal consultation undertaken so far in relation to the options and noted the opposition to redevelopment from the Huguenot House Resident’s Association.

4.         That the Cabinet having considered the recommendations above, agreed that Option 4A* as set out in paragraph 6.3 of the report be the preferred option that best meets the Council’s aspirations for the property, subject to further formal consultation with all residents and occupiers.

5.         That the Cabinet confirmed that Option 4A* be progressed by the development team, and subject to providing a report back to Cabinet with a full analysis of the feedback from a formal consultation with residents, commercial occupiers and local stakeholders, Option 4A* be compared to the current 4 options as noted in 6.3 of this report.

6.         That the Cabinet approved expenditure from the General Fund capital budget to enable the team to progress the design and cost certainty of the preferred option by procuring a multidisciplinary design team, surveys and professional services to advance the preferred option to RIBA Stage 2 and instructed Officers to develop the final business case in parallel with the design process, working with the City Treasurer to seek a recommendation to proceed with that option from the Capital Review Group.

Councillor Mitchell requested that his vote for Option 2 as the preferred option be recorded.

4.13    Reasons for Decision

A revised City for All programme has been launched with three new key priorities. These were to put civic leadership and responsibility at the heart of all we do, to promote opportunity and fairness across the city and to set the standards for a world class city. The development proposals for the Property will enable the Council to best meet its ‘City for All’ aspirations as follows:

·          Civic leadership and responsibility; the options include proposals which will provide an enhanced rental income from the asset in support of the Council’s fiscal demands and asset retention. The Council’s objective to create new business space, homes and Page 7 entertainment space will be met through redevelopment and an increase in the density and quality of the final product above the current provision.

·          Promote opportunity; the options include proposals to create new jobs and employment opportunities in the office, retail and leisure market as a result of an improved office space, cinema and public parking provision. The number of estimated operational jobs range from between 327 to 598 depending on the option. In addition to this, if a redevelopment option is selected; further jobs will be created during the construction phase, creating further economic prosperity within Westminster.

·          A world class city; the options for the Property will add to the built environment and revitalise an uninviting area of the West End through the enhancement of the public realm, encouraging further regeneration and footfall in the vicinity and making it a safer, attractive and  more vibrant location.