Skip to main content

Decisions

Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.

Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.

Earlier - Later

Decisions published

12/08/2020 - Parliamentary Ducting - Dartmouth Street & Victoria Street ref: 1232    Recommendations Approved

Staff working for Parliament's Strategic Estates are due to occupy new offices in Dartmouth Street and Victoria Street in 2020. In order to provide power and communications resilience to those new offices, Parliament's Strategic Estates have requested that the City Council install new ducting and cables in the street under a Highways Act s278 agreement.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 12/08/2020

Effective from: 12/08/2020

Decision:

1.        That the report and other background papers to the report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Paragraph 7, as amended, in that they contain information which “in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information’.

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways approved the design and implementation of the ducting infrastructure works shown on Plans attached in Appendix B to the report.

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways approved the gross expenditure of £4,000,000 to enable the completion of the detailed design and implementation of the ducting infrastructure works which will be fully funded by the Parliamentary Estates Directorate under the terms of a section 278 agreement.

4.        That the Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways approved the agreement pursuant to section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 with the Parliamentary Estates Directorate to secure the works and funding.

5.        That the Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways approved authority being delegated to the Executive Director of City Management and Communities to approve details of the secondary scheme in Little College Street and minor modifications to the scheme in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways.

 

 

1.        The proposed ducting infrastructure works in the public highway identified in this report will improve business continuity and connectivity between buildings operated by the Parliamentary Estates Directorate.

2.       The estimated cost of the proposals identified in this report is £4,000,000which includes, design costs, approvals, Westminster costs, risk and contingency etc. and will be fully funded by the Parliamentary Estates Directorate.

 

Wards affected: St James's;


11/08/2020 - Nomination and Appointment of Local Authority School Governors ref: 1231    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Children's Services

Decision published: 11/08/2020

Effective from: 11/08/2020

Decision:

1)              That Appendix A to this report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) – Information Relating to a Particular Individual.

 

2)              That the recommendations of the Local Authority School Governor’s Advisory Panel set out in Appendix A be approved.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

Every maintained school governing body must contain at least one Local Authority nominated school governor.

 


07/08/2020 - 9 Woodfield Road - Land disposal ref: 1229    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for disposal of land.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 07/08/2020

Effective from: 15/08/2020

Decision:

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

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the terms of the leasehold interest to be granted to the Developer for 9 Woodfield Road and the subsequent lease terms to be granted by the Developer to  Westminster City Council (WCC )for WCC’s use and occupation of a new street cleansing depot and noted that the proposed re-provision of the new depot facility combined with the Developer’s agreement to pay WCC’s Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) together with their S.106 Agreement obligations be accepted as WCC’s total financial consideration for the granting of a 999 year lease for 9 Woodfield Road.

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration granted the Executive Director of Finance and Resources and/or the Director of Corporate Property the delegated authority to complete the Agreement for Lease required for development of the New Depot and to enter into two leases, one to the Developer for WCC’s existing Depot site and the second for WCC’s use of the New Depot, both to be entered into on achievement of prcatical completion of the New Depot.

4.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the proposed amendments to the Section 106 Agreement and noted that such approval being required because the Council is the owner of the property asset to be disposed of.

 

Reasons for Decision

The Planning Consent (application reference number 19/04487/FULL) together with a Section106 Agreement granted on the 3 July 2020 includes an obligation upon the Developer to provide a new street sweepers depot for the Council. This provision can only be actuated once the Council has agreed terms for the disposal of its land at  9 Woodfield Road, to the developer.


03/08/2020 - Expenditure from the Ward Budget for Harrow Road Ward ref: 1228    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 03/08/2020

Effective from: 03/08/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £10,131 to commission the Out of School 2020-21 Holiday Programme as detailed in the report be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

3 August 2020

Implementation Date:

3 August 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/4/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Harrow Road;

Lead officer: Janis Best


03/08/2020 - Expenditure from the Ward Budgets for Warwick and Tachbrook Wards ref: 1227    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 03/08/2020

Effective from: 03/08/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £14,278.40 to commission Hydra Fountain for St George’s Square be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

3 August 2020

Implementation Date:

3 August 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/2/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Tachbrook; Warwick;

Lead officer: Janis Best


29/07/2020 - Highways Services Procurement Strategy ref: 1224    Recommendations Approved

Decision paper on Highways Services Procurement Strategy.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 29/07/2020

Effective from: 06/08/2020

Decision:

Recommendations

The report will be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A Part 1, paragraph 3 (as amended), in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways approved a 1-year extension of all contracts from April 2022- March 2023 to allow efforts to be concentrated on the City Council’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.K. and to develop the contract packaging in light of changing market conditions.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways approved the procurement strategy and new operating model for the re-let of the service.

 

Reasons for Decision

A 1-year extension of the current contractual arrangements will enable the City Council to focus its efforts on responding to the current COVID 19 outbreak and will provide time for an effective procurement of the new operating model to be carried out.

 

The procurement strategy and future operating model which is outlined in this report will provide the best opportunity to deliver the required service improvements across the City Highways service to achieve the City Council’s ambition of a world class highways environment. It will also assist the City Council with meeting it’s ‘City for All’ objectives.

 

There is uncertainty as to how long it will take the highways and wider construction market to recover from the COVID 19 pandemic, so it is prudent to review the need for further extensions to the existing arrangement if required.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Philip Robson


28/07/2020 - Development Sales Programme - Delegated Authority Paper for Parsons North ref: 1223    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for delegating authority to operate a Development Sales Programme for a site in Parsons North.

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Decision published: 28/07/2020

Effective from: 29/07/2020

Decision:

1.                Appendices 1 and 2 of this report being exempt from disclosure by the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any person (including the authority holding that information).

2.                That the Leader of the Council delegated authority to the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing or the Director of Development and named officers to approve reservations and the sale terms of private sales units at Venice Court, 124 Hall Place in accordance with section 5 of this report.

3.                That the Leader of the Council delegated authority to the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing or Director of Development and named officers to enter into all associated legal agreements in relation to decision 2 above.

Reasons for Decision

Approval of the recommendations will prevent any delays in accepting offers to formalise reservations which will ensure prospective purchasers receive confirmation of their offer being accepted in a timely manner without having to request Cabinet Member approval for each unit in turn.

Wards affected: Little Venice;


23/07/2020 - Local Authority Discretionary Grants Fund ref: 1220    Recommendations Approved

Officer Report

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 23/07/2020

Effective from: 23/07/2020

Decision:

1.        That Appendix A to the report be declared exempt from publication as the business to be transacted involves the disclosure of information as prescribed by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Act as it relates to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority)

 

2.        That the Cabinet Member approves the award of grants to the businesses shown at Appendix A to the report.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed awards have each met the mandatory requirements of the scheme

and have been given an evaluation score sufficient to qualify for a grant.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Martin Hinckley


23/07/2020 - Westbourne Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation ref: 1221    Recommendations Approved

A decision is required on whether the Westbourne Neighbourhood Forum should be re-designated for a further 5 years.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 23/07/2020

Effective from: 23/07/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the Westbourne Neighbourhood Forum be re-designated for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice be published under delegated authority by the Director of Policy and Projects.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The City Council is required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects (in general terms) the character of the area. The application submitted by the Forum for re-designation and the Forum Constitution indicate that the Forum was established to influence planning and development in the area to promote: A good mix of facilities and amenities, an attractive character and identity, a healthier environment, a good quality physical environment, a low carbon footprint and local employment and enterprise. The statement of purpose within the application also outlines that the forum will improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the area using its planning influence.

 

Consultation on the re-designation of the Westbourne Neighbourhood Forum highlighted support for the application, no objections, or competing applications.

 

Stuart Love,

Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

10 July 2020

Implementation Date:

 

10 July 2020

Reference:

 

CMfB&P/3/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Bayswater; Westbourne;

Lead officer: Michela Leoni


22/07/2020 - Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (07.07.20) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Application ref: 1219    Recommendations Approved

Consider recommendations of the Discretionary Housing Review Panel to award a payment

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 22/07/2020

Effective from: 22/07/2020

Decision:

1.        That Appendix A to the report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because the applications involve the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

          

2.        That the Cabinet Member approved the recommendations of the Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel meeting of 7 July 2020

 

 

The Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A to the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Gwyn Thomas


14/07/2020 - Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal – In Principle Compulsory Purchase Order Resolution ref: 1216    Recommendations Approved

This report identifies the progress made towards the renewal of the Ebury Bridge Estate and seeks Cabinet Member approval to progress all work necessary to establish a case for compulsory purchase of land and property required for the redevelopment of Pimlico House, Bridge House, Westbourne House, Rye House, Bucknil House, Victoria House, and Donraile House (the Order Land) as part of the Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal, whilst continuing to negotiate and complete acquisitions of legal interests, on the basis of the statutory Compulsory Purchase Compensation Code.

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision published: 14/07/2020

Effective from: 14/07/2020

Decision:

That Cabinet:

 

1.        Approved the progress of all work necessary to establish a case for compulsory purchase of the Order Land.

 

2.        Approved, in principle, the use of compulsory purchase powers for the acquisition of the land required for development phases of the Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal redevelopment beyond the first phase.  The extent of the land required is shown indicatively in hatched blue and orange on the attached plan at Appendix 1 of the report (referred to as the Order Land) and note that the making of any CPO will be subject to Cabinet being satisfied in all respects that the criteria in paragraph 3.7 of the report have been met.

 

3.        Noted that Officers will need to seek a future resolution to grant authority, in accordance with section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972, to declare that any land acquired or held by the Council and required for the delivery of the Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal redevelopment may, where they conclude that it is no longer needed for its present purpose, appropriate the land for such statutory purpose as necessary to deliver the Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal redevelopment, and to authorise the overriding of such easements, rights, or other adverse matters burdening the land, where that is needed to deliver the scheme, in reliance on section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.  Such appropriation may take place as a whole or in phases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.        The Ebury Bridge Estate is one of the five priority estates identified in the Council’s Housing Renewal Strategy (2010) as needing significant improvement and investment. In line with the Council’s City for All objectives, the overarching objective of regenerating Ebury Bridge Estate is to create a comprehensive renewal that brings about physical, economic and sustainable change that creates additional homes and improves the lives of residents, businesses and visitors alike.

 

2.        Whilst progress with property owners has been made in discussing acquisitions that will be necessary to deliver the proposals beyond the first phase of the Ebury Bridge Estate redevelopment, land assembly remains a critical issue for the delivery of this part of the scheme. Clearly the estate renewal cannot be delivered across properties that are not wholly in the ownership or under the control of the Council and without this, certainty cannot be gained to the likely programme for delivery of the complete estate renewal.

 

 

 

 

3.        To enable the comprehensive redevelopment of the Ebury Bridge estate renewal all relevant land interests will need to be brought in, in a timely way.  Whilst it is anticipated that further progress can be made on the negotiated approach for some property interests it is good practice and appropriate to consider the use of compulsory purchase powers.

 

4.        The government recognises in its "Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Process and The Crichel Down Rules" dated July 2019, (the CPO Guidance), that if acquiring authorities wait for negotiations to break down, this can have detrimental impacts on the timing of delivery of projects. Therefore, depending on when the land is required, the guidance considers it sensible for an acquiring authority to:

 

·       plan a compulsory purchase as a contingency measure; and

·       initiate formal procedures.

·        

5.        Importantly, the CPO Guidance expressly recognises that such steps "...help to make the seriousness of the authority’s intentions clear from the outset, which in turn might encourage those whose land is affected to enter more readily into meaningful negotiations".

 

6.        The CPO Guidance requires acquiring authorities to attempt to acquire land by agreement before embarking on the CPO process, although it is recognised that for schemes involving the acquisition of the number of interests, it is sensible to run the CPO process in parallel with ongoing negotiations.

 

7.        The use of compulsory purchase powers to assemble the Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal scheme site for phases beyond the first phase will be used should all reasonable attempts to acquire the necessary land and interests fail. As the CPO Guidance makes clear, use of compulsory purchase powers is intended as a 'last resort'. Officers acknowledge that if any CPO was to be made the Cabinet would require further updating and justification.

 

8.        In this event. a detailed report setting out the justification for the making of a CPO together with the proposed Statement of Reasons would be submitted to Members.

 

9.        The main benefit of the use of compulsory purchase is the certainty of being able to obtain vacant possession to a planned programme. This is vital in order give the Council confidence that the whole Ebury Bridge estate renewal will be delivered. The use of compulsory purchase also provides a level of certainty on project programming which in turn would allow the Council to enter into commercially sound construction contracts. This is because, once the CPO is confirmed and the legal challenge period has passed, the CPO can be implemented and a date for vacant possession fixed in accordance with the project programme which can immediately follow or coincide with the programme for the first phase of redevelopment.

 

 

Wards affected: Churchill;

Lead officer: Barbara Brownlee


23/06/2020 - Flat 2, 21 Denbigh Street London SW1V 2HF ref: 1210    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Applications Sub-Committee (2)

Made at meeting: 23/06/2020 - Planning Applications Sub-Committee (2)

Decision published: 13/07/2020

Effective from: 23/06/2020

Decision:

Retention of air conditioning condenser unit at rear ground floor roof level and proposed installation of acoustic enclosure.

 

The Presenting Officer tabled the followingadditional Condition

 

Item No. 5 Flat 2 21 Denbigh Street London SW1V 2HF

 

Additional condition

 

The plant/machinery hereby permitted shall not be operated except between 0700 hours and 2300 hours daily.

 

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

 

That conditional permission be granted subject to the additional Condition as tabled to control the operational hours of the plant between 7am – 11pm only and a further condition requiring a post commissioning acoustic survey to be undertaken and submitted for approval.

 

Wards affected: Warwick;


09/07/2020 - Carlton Dene - An Extra Care and Residential Development' ref: 1214    Recommendations Approved

Cabiinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 09/07/2020

Effective from: 17/07/2020

Decision:

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

 

2)              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property, and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health:

 

                    I.      Approved and agreed the preferred option as set out in paragraph 9.1 in the report, to deliver 65 extra-care and 22 general needs units, subject to final design, which would be fully examined during the next stage of the project.

 

                  II.      Note that Carlton Dene was no longer required as a care home and would no longer be reserved for that purpose.

 

                III.      Approved the allocation of £2.067M to develop the design for the site up to and including RIBA Stage 4 and to enable the relocation of residents from Peebles House. The Outline Business Case would seek approval to submit a planning application based on the Preferred Way Forward. 

 

               IV.       To note the formation of a cross-directorate project board to aid the delivery of the project. The board would consist of the senior or director nominated officers from Adult Social Care Operations and Commissioning, Housing and Regeneration, Finance, Procurement, Development and Legal.

 

3)              Agreed to authorise the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing in consultation with the Executive Director Adult Social Care and Health and the Bi-Borough Director of Law, to deal with all necessary legal arrangements to give effect to the recommendations set out in the report.

 

Reasons for Decisions

 

1)              The key drivers for decision making were:

 

                    I.      Beachcroft Care Home was a new purpose-built accommodation for those currently living in Carlton Dene; the closure of Carlton Dene was agreed by Cabinet Members in April 2019 following extensive consultation with residents and relatives;

                  II.      Bringing forward additional capacity and new forms of care on sites where the Council was the freeholder (facilitated by moving existing residents to Beachcroft);

        III.              Provide new affordable homes in line with the Council’s planning policy;

 

        IV.              Bringing forward new affordable housing which would contribute towards meeting the 20/21 City for All objectives, in particular Vibrant Communities.

 

         V.              Improve the environmental performance of Council properties, saving energy and money;

        VI.              Offer current Council tenants the chance to stay in their current neighbourhood should they wish; and

 

VII.      Deliver viable options which consider the duty of the Council to safeguard the public purse.


07/07/2020 - Extension of the Contract for Provision of Fixed Point Car Sharing Club Services & Extension of the Contract for Provision of Flexible Car Sharing Club Services and granting of waiver to increase the maximum permitted vehicles operating in the City ref: 1212    Recommendations Approved

The Fixed Point Car Sharing Club Services contract, provided by Zipcar (UK) Ltd, provides 185 vehicles, operating from dedicated car club bays, for hire by residents and businesses who are signed up to the scheme as an alternative to private vehicle ownership. The proposal is to extend the contract by 2 years. The provision of the service will remain the same, other than the contract expiry date.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 07/07/2020

Effective from: 07/07/2020

Decision:

2.        Recommendations

 

2.1           That the Cabinet Member for Environment and City Highways approved the extension of the contract for Fixed Point car sharing (Lot 1) for 1 year with no change to the terms of contract.

 

2.2           That the Cabinet for Environment and City Highways approved the extension of the contract for Flexible car sharing (Lot 2) for 1 year and the variation of the contract to increase, from 90 to 135, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to operate in the City.   

 

 

3.        Reasons for Decision 

 

3.1          The extension of the service by one year will allow sufficient time to procure a broad service incorporating three models of car sharing.  This will serve to increase the number of available vehicles to residents, introduce competition to the market and meet the financial shortfall generated by the departure of Drive Now from the UK market. 

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Darren Montague


06/07/2020 - Lighting Master Plan 2020 - 2040 ref: 1211    Recommendations Approved

The lighting master plan lays down a strategy and strategic approach to manage the application and use of artificial light across the city.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 06/07/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

1.              Recommendations

1.1          The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways approved the adoption of the Westminster Lighting Master Plan 2020-2040.

 

1.2           The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways approved the following associated Westminster lighting guides;

i)                Lighting Design Guide

ii)              Third Party Attachments / Smart Lighting Column Guide

iii)             Temporary Public Lighting Works Guide

iv)            Earthing and Electrical Arrangements for Street Furniture

 

2.              Reasons for Decision 

2.1          The Lighting Master Plan 2020-2040 allows the council to have a strategic approach to managing the application and use of artificial light across the city.  Co-ordinating the use and appearance of lit assets throughout the city gives an added identity to specific areas and allows quality of a consistent approach from all parties wishing to influence the night-time economy.

 

2.2          To ensures quality through design by competent professionals so that the lighting serves its purpose, mindful of associated energy costs and likely impact on the environment, and consider the sustainability of the lighting performance for the tasks that are being lit.

 

2.3          The Lighting Design Guide supports the Lighting Master Plan and defines a standard of lighting “The Westminster Standard” appropriate to the needs of the council and its highway and public realm users to assist schemes meet a common criteria.

 

2.4          The Third-Party Attachments / Smart Lighting Column guide allows the council to consider the strategy / approach to take when thinking about lighting columns as structures.  Columns have been designed to support a luminaire, bracket, sign and perhaps some other specific attachments. Therefore, it is important that they are considered as a structure and their structural capacity assessed when making any attachment consideration. It is vital for public safety that a strategy and approach is in place to avoid the columns being overburdened by attachments.

 

2.5          The Temporary Public Lighting Works Guide advises on the procedures and requirements when public lighting is requested to be removed, such that appropriate solutions can be agreed to meet the needs of developments scaffolding or hoarding, whilst not adversely affecting the highway.

 

2.6          The Earthing & Electrical Arrangements for Street Furniture identifies accepted historic Westminster common practice and explores reasons behind those practices and if they should be formally adopted.  This allows the benefits of those common practices used during the current framework to become standard practice.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Philip Robson


26/06/2020 - 9 Woodfield Road - Section 106 Agreement ref: 1209    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for terms of Section 106 details,

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 26/06/2020

Effective from: 26/06/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration gave consent to 9 Woodfield Road, W9 be included in the development site to which the terms of the Section 106 Agreement apply.

Reasons for Decision 

1.              The Section (S.).106 Agreement is being entered into by both Westminster City Council (WCC) s landowner and WCC as the Local Planning Authority.

2.              The S.106 is entered into purely to secure the relevant planning obligations should the development proceed. The Council as landowner is entering into it purely as a “consenting freeholder”.The Council will not be liable for any of the obligations unless they initiate the development themselves, and even then, only to the extent that they affect the Council’s land.

 

3.              The S.106 Agreement contains an obligation requiring the Developer to enter into a further contract with WCC, (as landowner), prior to the commencement of any works to secure the provision of a new street sweeper depot at the developer’s cost.  The relevant property contract in this regard will be the subject of a further Cabinet Member report in due course.


26/06/2020 - Oxford Street District Design Guardian Phase II - Contract Award ref: 1208    Recommendations Approved

Approval to award a contract for the Urban Design services required to support the delivery of the Oxford Street District Place Shaping Project sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 26/06/2020

Effective from: 04/07/2020

Decision:

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

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the award a contract for the Urban Design (Design Guardian) services of the Oxford Street District place shaping project to the preferred bidder, for a period of three years with an optional two year extension for a maximum contract value as set out in the report. 

 

Reasons for Decision

The Council conducted the procurement activity via the Greater London Authority’s Architecture Design and Urbanism Panel (ADUP) framework, which means that all the framework suppliers had already undergone technical and commercial testing to achieve their place in the framework. A review of the Lot structure of the ADUP framework identified Lot 1, (Urban Strategies , Spatial Policy and Research) as appropriate for providing the services required of the Design Guardian, with significant scope alignment with the Council requirements. Any one of these framework providers had the technical potential to deliver the required services for the Council.


22/06/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 2nd June 2020: Determination of National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications ref: 1207    For Determination

Consider recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel in relation to applications for Hardship and Discretionary Rate Relief

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 22/06/2020

Effective from: 22/06/2020

Decision:

1.         That this report and appendices be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraph 3, as amended, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of an individual.

 

2.       That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel held on 2nd June 2020 and determined the applications for National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship relief as set out in Appendix A of the report.

Reasons for Decision

 

The Rating Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A of the report.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Susan Bush


19/06/2020 - Expenditure from the Ward Budget for Marylebone High Street ref: 1206    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 19/06/2020

Effective from: 19/06/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £33,582.90 to commission Hanging Baskets be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

19 June 2020

Implementation Date:

19 June 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/1/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Marylebone;

Lead officer: Janis Best


17/06/2020 - Award of Contract - expansion works at King Solomon Academy (Older Years Site) and Nursery (Younger Years Site). ref: 1204    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Children's Services

Decision published: 17/06/2020

Effective from: 25/06/2020

Decision:

 

 

1.              That Part B of this report be exempt from disclosure under s100B(2) and Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972, (as amended) in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services

 

·            Grant approval to enter into a Design & Build contract with Neilcott Construction Limited, for construction of a new Nursery at the Younger Years Site, for £2.373m, and 

 

·            Grant approval to enter into a Design & Build contract with Neilcott Construction Limited, for construction of a new dining hall and refurbishment works at the Older Years Site for £1.809m.

 

3.              That the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services authorised the Director of Law to negotiate and sign with Neilcott Construction Limited two Design & Build contracts and, with ARK Schools, a Development Agreement for each site.

 

Reasons for the Decision

1.              As part of the Council’s approved Secondary School Expansion programme, King Solomon Academy was subject to a building project. This would enable the Council to fulfil its statutory duty to provide a school place for every child who needs one in its area.

 

2.       The tender evaluation report (Gate 3) was presented to the Commercial Gateway Review Board (CGRB) on 12 May 2020. CGRC endorsed the recommendation of award to the Bi-Borough Executive Director of Children’s Services to award the contracts to Neilcott Construction Limited, Registered Company Number 1151561.

 

The Gate 3 paper and the cost consultant commercial tender review are attached as Appendices A and B to the report.

 

3.              The proposed contract value was within the programme budget negotiated with the School and ARK. Overall expenditure was in line with the Pre-Tender Estimate and had been verified by Finance (please see the Financial Implications slide in the Gate 3 paper - slides 10 &11 of Appendix A).

Wards affected: Church Street;

Lead officer: Alan Wharton


05/06/2020 - Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation ref: 1201    Recommendations Approved

Approval required to re-designate Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum for a further 5 years, to enable them to continue carrying out neighbourhood planning matters in Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Area

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 05/06/2020

Effective from: 05/06/2020

Decision:

That the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum be re-designated for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice be published under delegated authority by the Director of Policy and Projects.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The City Council is required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects (in general terms) the character of the area. The application submitted by the Forum for re-designation states that the Forum was established with the purpose of making Knightsbridge the most desirable and attractive residential and cultural area in London in which to live, work, study, and visit. A number of priorities are identified for the Forum, which include:

·                 Seeking to ensure the neighbourhood portion of CIL are utilised in line

with the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Plan

·                 Reviewing the policies in the ‘made’ Knightsbridge Neighbourhood

Plan and updating as necessary;

·                 Commenting on planning applications or consultations relating to the

Neighbourhood Area.

 

These priorities represent strong reasons for the Neighbourhood Forum to continue

to carry out neighbourhood planning responsibilities in the area. Consultation on the

re-designation application also highlighted support for the application, no objections, 

or competing applications.

 

Stuart Love,

Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

3 June 2020

Implementation Date:

 

3 June 2020

Reference:

 

CMfB&P/2/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Knightsbridge and Belgravia;

Lead officer: Sean Walsh


19/02/2020 - Homelessness Strategy ref: 1155    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for Homelessness Strategy.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Hsg Services

Decision published: 19/02/2020

Effective from: 27/02/2020

Decision:

1.              That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services agreed the Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 as set out in Appendix B of the report.

 

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing agreed the Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 Action Plan in Appendix C of the report and that noted it be updated regularly.

 

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services delegated authority to the Director responsible for Housing to update the Action Plan in conjunction with the Cabinet Member responsible for Housing. 

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The Homelessness Act 2002 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 require local authorities to have in place a Homelessness Strategy informed by the results of Homelessness Review. A new Homelessness Strategy is also needed to ensure that the council is doing everything possible to prevent and respond to homelessness in the city.  

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Hsg Services

Decision published: 02/06/2020

Effective from: 27/02/2020

Decision:

1.              That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services agreed the Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 as set out in Appendix B of the report.

 

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing agreed the Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 Action Plan in Appendix C of the report and that noted it be updated regularly.

 

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services delegated authority to the Director responsible for Housing to update the Action Plan in conjunction with the Cabinet Member responsible for Housing. 

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The Homelessness Act 2002 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 require local authorities to have in place a Homelessness Strategy informed by the results of Homelessness Review. A new Homelessness Strategy is also needed to ensure that the council is doing everything possible to prevent and respond to homelessness in the city.


27/05/2020 - Criteria for the Local Authority Discretionary Grants Fund ref: 1199    Recommendations Approved

Approval of Cabinet Members sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 27/05/2020

Effective from: 27/05/2020

Decision:

1.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Business and Planning agreed that the Council follows the government guidance for the scheme by seeking applications from businesses within each of the government’s four priority business sectors, viz:

        Small businesses in shared offices or other flexible workspaces. Examples could include units in industrial parks, science parks and incubators which do not have their own business rates assessment;

        Regular market traders with fixed building costs, such as rent, who do not have their own business rates assessment;

        Bed & Breakfasts which pay Council Tax instead of business rates and

        Charity properties in receipt of charitable business rates relief which would otherwise have been eligible for Small Business Rates Relief or Rural Rate Relief.

 

2.        That in accordance with the government’s guidance, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Business and Planning agreed that to be eligible, each business must meet the following criteria:

        Be a small or micro business, as defined in Section 33 Part 2 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Companies Act 2006;

        Have relatively high ongoing fixed property-related costs;

        Be able to demonstrate that they have suffered a significant fall in income due to the COVID-19 crisis and

        Occupy property, or part of a property, with a rateable value or annual rent or annual mortgage payments below £51,000.

 

 

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Business and Planning agreed that businesses that qualify under the Council’s discretionary scheme will each be awarded a grant of £10,000, irrespective of whether they would have qualified for £10,000 or £25,000 under the main grant scheme if they had a unit of occupation within the Valuation List.

 

4.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Business and Planning agreed that a Cabinet panel, supported by officers, evaluates the applications received  against the requirements within the government’s guidance (Appendix A of the report), the criteria set out in 1. and 2. above, together with how each business benefits Westminster residents and the local community and noted that the panel is to subsequently make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration for a formal determination.

 

Reasons for Decision 

1.        The proposed criteria matches the government’s stated priority objectives.

2.        The proposed criteria will support the largest cohort of businesses that have contacted the Council that do not qualify under the main grants scheme, with the exception of businesses excluded under the main grants scheme.


22/05/2020 - Council Tax, NNDR, Housing Benefit Overpayments and Former Client Rent Arrears - Irrecoverable Debt, Quarter 4, 2019/20 ref: 1198    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 22/05/2020

Effective from: 02/06/2020

Decision:

1.               That the report be declared exempt from publication as, the business to be transacted involves the disclosure of information as prescribed by paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Act relating to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority).

 

2.               That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration gave to the writing off the irrecoverable debt as shown in paragraph 5.1 of the report.

 

3.               That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration noted the amounts shown in paragraph 6.1 of the report as written-off under officer delegated authority.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The recommendation to write-off the amounts detailed in this report is proposed as all other avenues available to the Council for the recovery of these debts have been exhausted, including, where appropriate, the issue of distress proceedings.


22/05/2020 - Disposal of 24 homes in Hounslow to a new buyer ref: 1197    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 22/05/2020

Effective from: 02/06/2020

Decision:

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

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the disposal of 24 units in Hounslow to the specified organisation at the agreed disposal price as detailed in the report.

 

3.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration delegated authority to the Director of Housing, in conjunction with the Director of Law, to agree the contract terms and to conclude the contract.

 

Reasons for Decision

Approval of the recommendations will enable the City Council to dispose of the 24 Housing Revenue Account owned units. The income received will be reinvested in replacement homes to be used for Social Housing.


18/05/2020 - Revision of the Council's National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Relief Guidelines in respect of the Local Discretionary Business Rate Revaluation Relief scheme for 2020/21 ref: 1196    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 18/05/2020

Effective from: 18/05/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the revised National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Relief guidelines as shown in Appendix A of the report.

Reason for Decision 

1.         The proposed guidelines at Appendix A of the report will, by providing criteria to be considered when making decisions, assist with robust and consistent decision-making.

 

2.         That delegated authority is given to the Director of Revenues and Benefits to amend the scheme entitlement percentage during the financial year if it appears that the not all of the government funding will be utilised by the scheme’s deadline (30 September 2021).


16/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Warwick, Tachbrook and Churchill Ward Budgets ref: 1195    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 16/05/2020

Effective from: 16/05/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £14,000 to commission the Pimlico Neighbourhood Forum be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

18 May 2020

Implementation Date:

18 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/10/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Churchill; Tachbrook; Warwick;

Lead officer: Janis Best


15/05/2020 - Financial Measures to respond to COVID-19 ref: 1194    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member appproval sought to take various financial measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 15/05/2020

Effective from: 23/05/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved:

1.1.The financial governance related to COVID-19 expenditure as per section 7 and the revised approval routes to ensure a co-ordinated consistent response to the operational needs that arise from the pandemic. 

1.2.The allocation of any COVID-19 government funding to be delegated to the Executive Director of Finance and Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration.

1.3.The financial support measures for the Council’s commercial tenants as noted in paragraph 6.7 of the report and delegated authority to the Executive Director of Finance and Resources to extend this in line with the financial governance as noted in section 7.

1.4.The brokerage facility as part of the Westminster Connects platform, as per paragraphs 6.9 to 6.12 of the report.

1.5.The continuation of immediate payment terms, even as the Council enters BAU with the IBC.

1.6.The income and debt management policies and delegations of these policies during the current crisis as per section 8 of the report.

1.7.That Westminster City Council act as the lead borough for the London Strategic Coordination Group for the provision of additional mortuary space across London, incurring all initial expenditure on the instructions of the mortuaries planning group and subsequently recovering this from the other London boroughs as set out in section 9 of the report.

1.8.The types of relief (as outlined in section 10) the Council may offer to suppliers in line with the financial approval limits set out in section 7. 

Reasons for Decision

1.     COVID-19 is impacting everything the Council does and is having an adverse effect on the economy and the resident and business communities that the Council serves. The Leader, Cabinet, Executive Leadership Team and other council officers are responding to this crisis daily.

2.     In the current circumstances where the Council is functioning outside of business as usual it is important to have an agreed financial framework within which the Council operates. This report sets out how the financial framework can be adapted within the boundaries of the financial regulations and the scheme of delegation. This ensures financial decisions are linked to operational and strategic needs specific to the Council’s response to the crisis, with decisions being made at the appropriate level and by the appropriate individual or group.

3.     The recommendations as set out in section 2 of the report and the Council’s financial management of the situation as outlined in sections 6-8 are considered to be the most appropriate and efficient way to assist the aforementioned groups to respond to this international pandemic.


14/05/2020 - Central London Cycle Grid: Quietway from St John's Wood to Marylebone - Design and Implementation ref: 1193    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 12/05/2020

Effective from: 22/05/2020

Decision:

Recommendations

1.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highwaysreaffirmed the City Council’s support for the Quietway St John’s Wood to Marylebone scheme, as part of the Central London Cycle Grid, and agreed to it being implemented.

 

2.     Approval was granted by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highwaysto undertake design and implementation of the proposed Quietway St John’s Wood to Marylebone scheme, as part of the Central London Cycle Grid.

 

3.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways gave delegated authority to the Executive Director for City Management and Communities to agree final scheme proposals and to enter into any necessary legal agreements with Transport for London, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways.

 

4.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highwaysgave delegated authority to the Executive Director for City Management and Communities to make any requisite traffic regulation orders associated with the scheme.

 

5.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways approved capital expenditure to the sum of £3,402,074to complete the scheme.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

1.      The proposed scheme will contribute to the adopted November 2013 and subsequent updated November 2016 City of Westminster City Plan objectives. It is intended that this scheme will:

 

·         Provide legible and safer routes for cycle traffic.

·         Improve the public realm and pedestrian facilities.

·         Improve health. This will be achieved in part by encouraging more everyday journeys to be made by active transportation. Improvements to pedestrian facilities are also proposed as part of the scheme.

·         Encourage more people to cycle. This will be achieved by implementing a scheme suitable for all people who want to cycle in the area, particularly those wishing to avoid some of the busier, highly trafficked main roads.

·         Reduce CO2 emissions. This will be achieved in part by encouraging modal shift from private motor vehicles to bicycles.

·         Reduce overcrowding on public transport. This will be achieved in part by encouraging more journeys to be made by bicycle.

 

Wards affected: Abbey Road; Bryanston and Dorset Square; Church Street; Regent's Park;


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Warwick Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1192    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

Notice is hereby given that the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reason set out below.

 

 

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £16,153.80 to commission Hanging Baskets be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/9/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Warwick;

Lead officer: Janis Best


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Vincent Square Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1191    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

Notice is hereby given that the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reason set out below.

 

 

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £10,627.50 to commission Hanging Baskets be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/8/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Vincent Square;

Lead officer: Janis Best


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Little Venice Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1190    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

SUBJECT: 

Expenditure from the Little Venice Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets

 

 

Notice is hereby given thatthe Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reason set out below.

 

 

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £21,255 to commission Hanging Baskets be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/7/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Little Venice;

Lead officer: Janis Best


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Abbey Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1189    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £14,736.80 to commission Hanging Baskets be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/6/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Abbey Road;

Lead officer: Janis Best


29/04/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 10.03.2020: Determination of National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications ref: 1188    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 29/04/2020

Effective from: 29/04/2020

Decision:

1.              That this report and appendices be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraph 3, as amended, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of an individual.

 

2.       That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel held on 10th March 2020 and determined the applications for National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship relief as set out in Appendix A of the report.

Reasons for Decision

 

The Rating Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A of the report.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Susan Bush


24/04/2020 - St James's Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation ref: 1186    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 24/04/2020

Effective from: 24/04/2020

Decision:

That the St James’s Neighbourhood Forum be re-designated for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice be published under delegated authority by the Director of Policy and Projects.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The City Council is required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects (in general terms) the character of the area. The application submitted by the Forum for re-designation states that the Forum was established to promote and improve the economic and environmental wellbeing of the area. It also makes clear that the continued preparation of a neighbourhood plan is a priority for the Forum. The Forum has carried out significant initial work on the neighbourhood plan and will carry out consultation on a draft plan in the upcoming months. The main purpose for the existence of the St James’s Neighbourhood Forum is therefore stronger now than when it was initially designated.

 

Consultation on the re-designation of the St James’s Neighbourhood Forum highlighted support for the application and no objections or competing applications had been received.

 

Stuart Love,

Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON 

SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

24 April 2020

Implementation Date:

 

24 April 2020

Reference:

 

CMfB&P/4/2019/20

 

Wards affected: St James's;

Lead officer: Ezra Wallace


23/04/2020 - Public consultation - Proposed borough-wide 20mph Limit ref: 1185    Recommendations Approved

Between 17 September 2019 and 10 December 2019 a public consultation of a proposed 20mph Limit across the City of Westminster Highway Network was undertaken. This report advises on the findings of the consultation and presents a recommendation for consideration and approval.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 23/04/2020

Effective from: 01/05/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways agreed that the proposed borough-wide 20mph scheme be implemented on the basis of:

 

·       Final design and delivery on the street be subject to the ongoing changes to the City Council’s services as it manages the current COVID-19 crisis and when an agreed point in the future is reached where the delivery of new schemes can be re-activated again

·       The results of the recent public consultation that ended on 10 December 2019, where two thirds of the respondents supported the proposed scheme;

·       The supporting killed and serious injury casualty related collisions evidence which indicates that these have flatlined since 2015 and that many of these relate to collisions with ‘vulnerable’ pedestrians and cyclists, of which a borough-wide 20mph limit can greatly reduce the severity of such;

·       The supporting evidence of the 2017 trial of 39 20mph zones where demonstrable reductions in recorded speed were evident;

·       Government legislation that empowers the City Council to consider the implementation of a borough-wide 20mph limit across its Highway Network;

·       The proposed Communications Plan that is set out in section 9 and appendix 4 of this report which includes the additional items set out in paragraph 9.3, which in particular seeks approval for the placing of 20mph limit messaging on City Council contracted vehicles and the hiring of advertising space on the backs of selected London buses;

·       The proposed Highways Scheme of 20mph on-street signs that is set out in section 10 of this report; and

·       The proposed estimated £1,406,887 cost of implementing the combined Communications Plan and Highways Scheme programme in 2020/21, as set out in Section 11 of the report.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

1.              In 2018 there were three fatalities on Westminster’s combined highway network and a further 269 individuals were seriously injured. By reducing our Borough-wide speed limit from 30mph to 20mph will mean that a person is five times more likely to survive if it is in a collision with a motorised vehicle.             

 

2.        A 20mph Westminster speed limit will also encourage a calmer and more respectful street environment for all of us who live, work, study or visit our great city. The proposal will also seek to encourage more to walk and cycle which in turn will deliver wider health and wellbeing benefits across all age groups.

 

3.        66% of respondents to the recent public consultation of a borough-wide 20mph Limit were in support of the proposed scheme and a 20mph borough is also a key aim of our City for All ambition to develop a Greener and Cleaner Westminster.

Wards affected: (All Wards);


15/04/2020 - Westminster Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - Project Allocations (Q1) ref: 1184    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 15/04/2020

Effective from: 23/04/2020

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Business and Planning was asked to:

 

1.      Approve the allocation of £0.272m from Westminster’s Neighbourhood CIL Portion. This covered the provisional allocation of funding for the projects set out in Appendix C, as follows:

(i)          Bishop’s Bridge Public Realm Action Plan

(ii)         Norfolk Square Gardens Showcase Garden

(iii)       Star Street Green Space Improvements

(iv)       Edgware Road Insights Study

(v)        Central Island Improvements for Elgin Avenue

(vi)       Charing Cross Road Area Public Realm

 

2.      Note the recommendations on further project proposals for Westminster’s Neighbourhood CIL Portion, as submitted by local communities.

Reasons for Decision 

 

In order to ensure robust and effective expenditure and reporting in line with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and in accordance with the council’s strategic priorities, CIL spending policy statement and its framework for resource allocation and management.

 

Lead officer: Ezra Wallace


09/04/2020 - Minor amendment to the Council's Council Tax Support Scheme for 2020/21 due to the Government's Covid-19 response regarding Working Tax Credits ref: 1183    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 09/04/2020

Effective from: 09/04/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration gave approval to increase the disregard that is applied to earnings by £20 per week within the Council’s Council Tax Support scheme.

 

Reason for Decision 

The recommendation aligns with the principles of City for All and ensures that the government’s recent increase in working tax credit, announced as part of the Covid-19 response, is not clawed back from the borough’s claimants via the Council’s Council Tax Support calculation.


31/03/2020 - Delivery of residential care services from Carlton Dene and Westmead ref: 1180    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 31/03/2020

Effective from: 31/03/2020

Decision:

1.        That this report be exempt from publication under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the granting of new leases to the organisation as detailed in the report for a term in line with the terms and length of the services contract awarded to the organisation already and to be co-terminous with the service contract in existence.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The fundamental reason for granting leases is to ensure and secure immediate continuity of essential services to vulnerable residents currently living within Carlton Dene and Westmead or in need of the services at these homes.


30/03/2020 - Expenditure from the Ward Budgets for Harrow Road, Westbourne and Maida Vale ref: 1179    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 30/03/2020

Effective from: 30/03/2020

Decision:

That expenditure of £20,587.07 for North Paddington Food Bank in respect of the Covid-19 Food Aid Response be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

30 March 2020

Implementation Date:

30 March 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/3/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Harrow Road; Maida Vale; Westbourne;

Lead officer: Janis Best


30/03/2020 - Expenditure from the Ward Budgets for Churchill, Church Street, Harrow Road, Maida Vale, Queen's Park and Westbourne ref: 1178    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 30/03/2020

Effective from: 30/03/2020

Decision:

That expenditure of £20,000 to commission The Z2K Advice Clinic be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

30 March 2020

Implementation Date:

30 March 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/5/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Church Street; Churchill; Harrow Road; Maida Vale; Queen's Park; Westbourne;

Lead officer: Janis Best


26/03/2020 - Contract Award of a Supported Housing Service for Adults - Transitional and Housing Led Units ref: 1177    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for contract award.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Hsg Services

Decision published: 26/03/2020

Effective from: 03/04/2020

Decision:

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

 

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services approved the decision to award the contract to the preferred bidder as part of a competitive tender process for the period from 1st July 2020 to 30th June 2024 for a total amount as set out in the report, with an optional one year extension.

  

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services delegated authority to the Director of Housing to consider/approve taking up the option of the one year extension, as allowed for within the contract conditions.

 

Reasons for Decision 

Regulation 72 (1) of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 require that for any variation clauses to be lawful they must be couched in ‘clear, precise and unequivocal’ terms, that state the scope and nature of possible modifications. This contract must be put onto a compliant contractual footing with clear start/expiry dates and provisions to extend that do not continue indefinitely.

 


25/03/2020 - Contract Award for Temporary Agency Workers ref: 1173    Recommendations Approved

Approval from the Leader of the Council sought for the contract award for temporary agency workers.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 25/03/2020

Effective from: 02/04/2020

Decision:

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

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the direct award of a new contract to the preferred bidder on the YPO2 Framework (Option 3) with a call off for two years with an option to renew up to a further two years

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The rationale for this decision is that this ensures continuity of services and is the lowest risk option.


13/03/2020 - Corporate Property Service ref: 1169    Recommendations Approved

Report to approve the reorganisation of the property service

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 13/03/2020

Effective from: 21/03/2020

Decision:

1.              That following formal consultation with staff and unions, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration gave approval for the new proposed structure to be implemented.

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration agreed that a Director of Property and Strategic Asset Management be added to the structure to provide dedicated focus and oversight of the Corporate Property portfolio.

 

3.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration agreed that the new structure be implemented by 1st April 2020.

Reasons for Decision

 

Having considered staff feedback and the recommendations from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) to reorganise and implement a new Corporate Landlord model, it was been agreed to consult staff and unions on a proposed new structure.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Natalie Roberts


11/03/2020 - Procurement Services Restructure ref: 1168    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for the restructure of Procurement Services.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 11/03/2020

Effective from: 19/03/2020

Decision:

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

 

2.        That Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration agreed to the implementation of the proposed Procurement Services structure as detailed in the report, to take effect from 6th April 2020.

 

3.        That Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration authorised the relevant officers (in this case, the Executive Director for Finance and Resources and his nominated delegates) to undertake such recruitment activities as are necessary to populate the new structure, in line with the Council’s normal policies and procedures.

 

4.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration notes that in line with Council policy, employees on the Council's Talent Pool who are in a redundancy situation will be given priority consideration for the new post(s) created prior to the post(s) being advertised and noted that this may include providing training to the redeployee, where appropriate, subject to costs and individual potential benefit.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The reason for this decision is to implement the organisational changes required to enable the council’s new Procurement Service to come into operational effect from 6th April 2020.


10/03/2020 - Planned Preventive Maintenance 2020/21 for Highways, Lighting, Bridges and Structures ref: 1166    Recommendations Approved

Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) programme for 2020/21 in respect of Highways, Public Lighting & Bridges and Structures

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 10/03/2020

Effective from: 18/03/2020

Decision:

2.                 Recommendations

2.1              The detailed proposals for the Highways PPM programme for 2020/21 at an estimated gross cost of £6,576,000 as detailed in Section 5.1 and Appendix A was approved.

 

2.2              The detailed proposals for the Bridges and Structures PPM programme for 2020/21 at an estimated gross cost of £1,730,000, as detailed in Section 5.2 was approved.

 

2.3              The detailed proposals for Public Lighting PPM programme for 2020/21 at an estimated gross cost of £3,271,000, as detailed in Section 5.3 and Appendix E, was approved.

 

2.4              The gross capital expenditure of £11,577,000 (net capital expenditure of £10,632,000) for 2020/21, comprising the annual PPM programmes for the City Council’s Highways, Public Lighting & Bridges and Structures was approved.

 

2.5              The Cabinet Member for Environment and  Highways delegated to the Executive Director of City Management and Communities the authority to make changes to the programmes agreed in recommendations 2.1 to 2.4, subject to the proviso that the overall budget is not exceeded and that the Cabinet Member is consulted on any significant changes.

 

3.                 Reasons for Decision

3.1              All assets deteriorate over time and any work aimed at maintaining the durability of the asset is classed as programmed maintenance. Such work prolongs the life of the asset and/or maintains structural capacity and is therefore considered as capital expenditure.

3.2              Each year the City Council’s regular inspection and testing programmes determine the current condition of the various highway assets (Carriageways, Footways, Lighting and Bridges & Structures) and identifies the forward investment needs that will keep the highway network in a safe and reliable condition.

3.3              Provision has been made in the capital programme for this expenditure to enable these programmes of work to be implemented together with preparation of forward programmes of work for 2021/22.

3.4              The Planned Preventative Maintenance programme set out in this report will ensure that the City Council’s highway assets remain safe and effective and support the City for All agenda.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


06/03/2020 - Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (18.02.2020) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Applications ref: 1164    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 06/03/2020

Effective from: 06/03/2020

Decision:

1.              That Appendix A to this report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because the applications involve the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

          

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel meeting held on18 February 2020

 

Reasons for Decision 

The Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A of the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.


06/03/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 28.01.2020: Determination of National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications ref: 1165    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 06/03/2020

Effective from: 06/03/2020

Decision:

1.         That this report and appendices be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraph 3, as amended, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of an individual.

 

2.       That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel held on 28th January 2020 and determined the applications for National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship relief as set out in Appendix A of the report.

Reasons for Decision

The Rating Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A of the report.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Susan Bush


06/03/2020 - Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (14.01.2020) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Applications ref: 1163    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 06/03/2020

Effective from: 06/03/2020

Decision:

1.               That Appendix A to this report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because the applications involve the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

           

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel meeting held on14 January 2020

 

Reasons for Decision 

The Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A of the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.


12/11/2019 - 100 Wardour, Ground Floor, 100 Wardour Street, London, W1F 0TN ref: 1162    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee (5)

Made at meeting: 12/11/2019 - Licensing Sub-Committee (5)

Decision published: 05/03/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2019

Decision:

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 5

Tuesday 12th November 2019

 

Membership:              Councillor Murad Gassanly (Chairman), Councillor Louise Hyams and Councillor Aicha Less

 

Legal Adviser:                         Horatio Chance

Policy Adviser:                        None present

Committee Officer:                  Artemis Kassi

Presenting Officer:                  Michelle Steward

 

Relevant Representations: Environmental Health Service, Licensing Authority, Westminster City Inspectors and six local residents (all in support of the review application)                                                      

 

Present: Richard Brown (Westminster Citizen Advice Bureau on behalf of the Applicants for the review); David Steele, Andy MacKay, Lucinda MacKay,  Alan Geeves and Issac Romanov (Applicants for the review); Mustafa Abdo (witness for the applicants); Anil Drayan (Environmental Health); Angela Seaward (Licensing Authority); Stephen Walsh QC (Counsel on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder); Elizabeth Southorn and Francesca Burnett Hall, Harris Hagan Solicitors (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder); David Loewi, Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Chairman, Michael Farquhar, Operations Director and Leslie Kwarteng, Senior General Manager and DPS, (all on behalf of D&D London Limited and the Premises Licence Holder, 100 Wardour Limited); Euan MacKenzie, Autograph Technical Audio Engineer (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder), Richard Vivian, Big Sky Acoustics (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder) and Lee Montague, Cole Jarman Acoustic Experts (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder), Racheal Ejuetami (City Inspector).

 

Apologies: Jane Doyle (The Soho Society)

 

100 Wardour, Ground Floor, Wardour Street London, W1F 0TN (“the Premises”) 19/02509/LIREVP

 

1.

On 1st March 2019 an application had been submitted by David Steele, Andy MacKay, Lucinda MacKay, Alan Geeves and Issac Romanov (the Applicants) for a review of the premises licence for 100 Wardour, Ground Floor, Wardour Street London, W1F 0TN (the Premises) on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance. The Premises were situated within the West End Cumulative Impact Area. Subsequently, there had been a hearing on 16th May 2019 where the Licensing Sub-Committee determined to adjourn for a period of not less than three (3) months to allow the Environmental Health Service to test sound equipment, including a noise limiter at the premises. The Licensing Sub-Committee had before it the application subsequent to the May adjournment.

 

Ms Michelle Steward (Presenting Officer) outlined the Application and confirmed that five local residents had applied to review the Premises Licence and that representations had also been received from Environmental Health Services, the Licensing Authority, Westminster City Inspectors and six other residents.  Mr Richard Brown, (Westminster Citizen’s Advice Bureau) was representing residents. The Licensing Officer advised that late representations had been received from the Applicants, an objector and the Environmental Health Service and that all documentation had been circulated to all parties.

 

Mr Richard Brown addressed the Sub-Committee and introduced the residents who were present at the review hearing. Mr Brown advised that his representation to the Sub-Committee earlier in the week contained additional submission with four key points set out as follows:

 

1.     That it was vital to resolution that residents and the Sub-Committee be able to understand what had gone on;

2.     At what levels the noise limiters had been set;

3.     Why they had been set at those levels; and

4.     Whether residents and the Sub-Committee could have full confidence going forward that the levels set would be appropriate for inaudibility.

 

Mr Brown recapitulated for the Sub-Committee that the Applicants were all long-term residents, that their main residence was in Soho Lofts and that they had experienced noise nuisance for decades since the 1990s. He referred to the Applicants’ statements and the impact that the situation has had on them as a local community. Mr Brown also recapitulated the decision by the Sub-Committee at the May hearing that the Sub-Committee was determined to find a permanent solution to the issues and that any measures needed to be embedded and tested.

 

Mr Brown advised that since the May adjournment there had been four sessions of noise testing. Mr Brown referred to the update from Mr David Steele at page 207 which set out the narrative of the testing and also referred to a meeting between David Steele, David Loewi, Michael Farqhuar and Leslie Kwarteng. Mr Brown referred the Sub-Committee to the meeting on 23rd October 2019 and to the chronology at page 144 (Anil Drayan’s memo). Mr Brown mentioned the differing levels required in different areas of the Premises, including for example in the atrium.

 

Mr Brown elaborated that at the first testing on 14th June 2019, levels were set for four areas on their own dedicated, separate sound systems and that Mr Crockford and other officers had been involved in that. Levels were set at 99 decibels for a live band and 98 decibels for a DJ, though Flat 38 was not tested. On 26th July 2019, officers reconvened as music had been heard and over a period of some months, there had been further complaints from residents. Further testing was carried out on 2nd October, undertaken by Anil Drayan and two other officers, focusing on the band in the basement and determining that band music noise was inaudible at 97 decibels with a buffer of 3 decibels to 94 decibels but that the DJ settings were different. On 4th and 5th October, further visits were made as nuisance had been heard at Flat 15. This resulted in a lengthy, final attempt to set the limiters on 23rd October. Mr Brown highlighted that two points of concern to the residents had emerged from all of this: namely at what level the limiters were set and the fact that the limiter appeared to have drifted from where it was set on 2nd October. Mr Steele believed that the level was 88 decibels and requested screen shots of messages between Mr Crockford and Mr Mackenzie. Mr Brown observed that Mr Steele was happy with levels at that point.

 

Mr Brown also raised the issue of whether the limiters were in fact fit for purpose and mentioned historic issues. Mr Brown referred to a further issue with noise outside on dispersal and referred to evidence from Mr Mackay. Mr Brown queried how the testing had advanced matters, noting that residents were initially pleased after the testing on 23rd October but that this dispelled. He further observed that the hearing in May had occurred after inconclusive testing and that the review application was now being heard after inconclusive testing. Mr Brown also observed that the levels of inaudibility and the integrity of the sound limiters were in question.

   

Mr David Steele addressed the Sub-Committee and mentioned that initial optimism had given way following random incidents of noise nuisance. Mr Steele referred to the precision setting of limiters so that if a limiter failed even once, then it was obvious that there was an issue; for it to fail six times was a serious issue. Mr Steele mentioned that he had first raised this with Westminster on 3rd July. Mr Steele then referred to the test results of 23rd October, which he found hard to understand particularly how the level went up to 93 decibels. He particularly referred to figures mentioned in the screenshots, including a figure of 97decibels, a figure which was not mentioned in a report. Mr Steele observed that even after the third test he could still hear noise and queried why the noise could not be heard after the second and fourth tests. Mr Steele referred to levels jumping from 97 to 99 decibels after the alleged reduction, leading to overall inability to draw conclusions from the tests. He also queried whether the limiter had worked over the previous two years. Mr Steele had arrived at a point where he thought that they were on the brink of feeling that the problem was close to being resolved when it became clear that the limiter was not being set at the levels they had thought. Mr Steele observed that three decibels was a considerable leap. He also queried when the management had known that the limiter was not working.

 

The Sub-Committee requested information as to communication from the Premises with the residents over the six-month period. David Steele characterised responses as non-committal when faced with specific dates and times of noise occurrence. Mr Steele pointed out that he had worked with limiters and compressors over forty years. Mr Steele felt that the noise levels were evident.

 

The statement from Mr Steele in support of the review application appears at page 25 of the agenda papers.

 

Mr Alan Geeves addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he resided in Flat 21, 2nd Floor, Soho Lofts. Mr Geeves advised that he considered the problem remedied  only on the basis that he had installed triple glazing in his flat. He pointed out that as he considered the problem now remedied , he had not gone through the recent testing. He explained to the Sub-Committee that his bedroom faced onto the well, which was where most of the noise had originated. However, Mr Geeves commented that during the heat of the summer, he had had the windows open. This had led to recurrence of noise nuisance to such an extent that he would now be installing air-conditioning to avoid opening his windows in the summer. He explained to the Sub-Committee that this had left him feeling angry and without any trust in the process, as this had continued over many years with the Premises adjusting the noise levels.

 

The statement from Mr Geeves in support of the review application appears at page 33 of the agenda papers.

 

Mr Mustafa Abdo addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he was the Maintenance Building Manager for Soho Lofts and resident in Flat 18. Mr Abdo explained his experience of the testing, including music being inaudible during the testing then audible when close to the window and inadequate levels being set. He observed that his wife’s working patterns meant that rest was necessary and airflow in his flat meant that they needed to open the windows. 

 

The statement from Mr Abdo in support of the review application appears at page 35 of the agenda papers.

 

Andy MacKay, resident of flat 38, 3rd Floor Soho Lofts, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that there has been noise, and queried the testing being carried during the day when there were other background noises and during the night when there was no other noise. He referred to nuisance over the last six months. He stated that he did not know what level of sound proofing had been installed but that there had not been an expectation of a discotheque there. He referred to further soundproofing of the Premises being a possibility and also referred to general problems in the street due to large drinking and music establishments in Soho.

 

The statement from Mr and Mrs MacKay in support of the review application appears at page 28 of the agenda papers.

 

Isaac Romanov addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he resided in Flat 16 of Soho Lofts. Mr Romanov advised that he both reiterated and agreed with the review Applicants, that there were periods of improvement but that there would be periods of erratic breaching. He observed that during the periods when the music went up, there had to be ways of limiting the breach, either through technical means or a human monitor of the situation.

 

The statement from Mr Romanov in support of the review application appears at page 30 of the agenda papers.

 

The Chairman observed that the objective of the adjournment had been to find a compromise solution and that the purpose of the current review hearing was to assess what progress, if any, had been made in that time. The Chairman invited a summary of the situation since the May deferral from the residents, whether effort had been made by the management. David Steele opined that the Premises Licence Holders had not minded turning the volume down slightly but that, once they had discovered the levels of reduction that would be required, this had been less acceptable to them, particularly (he felt) when they discovered that noise levels would have to be less than 91 dB. Mr Steele referred to the levels of security protecting the limiter though it appeared not to work. He referred to assurances given 20 years ago that the limiters would work and solve the problem. The Sub-Committee queried the bypassing of the limiters. Mr Steele considered that the process was simply that of tweaking.

 

The Licensing Authority maintained its representations and support of the review and to support the historic enforcement. The Sub-Committee heard that it was accepted that there had been historic nuisance.

 

The Environmental Health Service, represented by Mr Anil Drayan, advised the Sub-Committee that the Premises had co-operated with officers in reducing the volume during testing and setting to go as far as necessary to achieve inaudibility. Mr Drayan corrected the record and stated that conversations (Anil Drayan/John Crockford) had been overheard and misunderstood, and that at no point had the level been at 88 decibels. Mr Drayan explained that Euan Mackenzie had used the limiter to reduce some speakers which were more prevalent. He also stated that since 23rd October there had been no reports to him or to the Noise Team about nuisance. Mr Drayan mentioned that there had been some frequency testing conducted, in trying to find noise leakage potentially in order to enhance any noise insulation measures. He particularly referred the Sub-Committee to his own statement at the second paragraph of page 151 (Wednesday 23rd October 2019) and emphasised:

 

“…experience has shown that nuisance can be caused by how loud music is played at, i.e. the average noise level during a certain time period and the frequency at which it is played.”

 

Mr Drayan discussed the nuisance from bass frequencies, including how a bass frequency at 70 decibels could constitute nuisance and mentioned the discovery on 23rd October of a (previously unknown) subwoofer at the ground floor level when John Crockford had still been reporting nuisance, but nuisance related to bass frequency. Mr Drayan explained how this had led to turning off everything and turning on the sound systems individually and that this had allowed them to identify the subwoofer as a source of nuisance, even at 70 decibels. Mr Drayan stated that in his experience when establishing noise nuisance and sound limits, the way to proceed was to use bass-heavy music as this would establish what controls for any sound limiter were needed. Mr Drayan explained that the type of sound limiter being used was of an automatic volume control, which did not measure the sound levels but instead measured how much power was going through the amp and from the amp through to the speakers.

 

Mr Drayan also explained how a sound level meter would then be used to measure output from the speakers and that when the band had played, it had played mainly high frequencies. Mr Drayan further explained that when the sound meter level was set using the band music, it was at 94 decibels on 2nd October. He elaborated that when testing was carried out on 23rd October, they had used bass heavy DJ music so that as well as high frequencies, there were also low input frequencies which had raised the level from 94 decibels to 97 decibels. Mr Drayan explained that this had led to further discussions with Euan MacKenzie to determine what had led to the increase as Mr Drayan had thought that DJ music had featured in previous testing.

 

Mr Drayan provided the Sub-Committee with context, namely that he himself had only had involvement in this case since 30th September 2019 and due to this as far as he knew at the time the cause of nuisance was the acoustic drum set controlled by the sound limiter. He explained that, because of this, using the sound limiter, they had reduced the noise from the electronic drum set from 98 decibels to 94 decibels, but that straightaway, on the following weekend Mr Steele had reported noise nuisance again. Mr Drayan then sought detailed information from Mr Steele about noise incidents on 3rd and 4th October as well as on the previous six instances, including precise timings, of noise nuisance reported. Mr Drayan stated that, upon his examination of the information concerning the incidents of 3rd and 4th October, it was clear that the nuisance related to DJ music. He also stated that a further round of testing was arranged, with the earliest date being 23rd October due to availability of parties involved. This testing had started using band music and DJ music later, and Mr Drayan observed that variation in the band configuration from that of 2nd October led to variation in the sound levels measured. However, Mr Drayan added that, with sound levels which accounted for bass and high frequencies, he did not expect the sound level to vary greatly from the set level.

 

The Sub-Committee sought clarification about the level at which the limiter had been set and Mr Drayan confirmed that this had been set at 91 db. The Sub-Committee also sought clarification from the review Applicants whether noise had been heard since 23rd October. Mr Steele confirmed that noise had not been heard since 23rd October but observed that, over 20 years, there was usually no noise prior to hearings and that the last time that there had been noise nuisance was 4th and 5th October. Mr Drayan added that previously there had not been configuration of the sound limiter for all the frequencies but that this had now been done. Mr Drayan also mentioned that discussions with the Police and that there had been no dispersal issues for these Premises in over a year.

 

Mr Stephen Walsh QC, (representing 100 Wardour Street Limited, the Premises Licence Holder) addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that D&D London Limited, the proprietor Company for 100 Wardour Street, had made efforts to facilitate testing within the Premises and resident flats, where possible, that the Premises  had engaged a number of acoustic experts with different specialisms at a cost of £112,000, had liaised with the Environment Health Service, had written to all residents so that testing could be carried out in their flats with varied response. Mr Walsh also explained that the Premises Licence Holder had offered to pay for an acoustic expert consultant for Mr Steele. He stated that D&D London Limited was keen to work with residents, pay for an acoustic consultant and work with Environmental Health. He added that a contact telephone number for the Duty Manager had been provided as requested at the previous hearing and since that hearing, no complaints or contact had been made to the Premises using that number. He stated that this number was periodically tested. Mr Walsh stated that in addition as far as the Premises Licence Holder was aware, other than the complaints relating to 4th and 5th October there had not been any complaints to the City Council’s Noise Team.

                                                     

Mr Walsh advised that, whilst the Licence Holder was aware of issues, it was not accepted that the Licence Holder had not done all that it could to liaise with residents to resolve any noise differences. Concerning the setting of the limiter and testing, Mr Walsh advised the Sub-Committee that this was a longer process than a one-off setting and that there had been interruptions to the testing, including building works noises. Mr Walsh observed that because the issues had been addressed and assessed over time, it had been possible to identify and isolate individual issues, including the acoustic drums and stated that the Licence Holder was happy to comply with a condition removing acoustic drums. He stressed that testing history was extensive and had started on 14th June, 26th July, through July to September, 2nd October, 23rd October and 8th November.

 

Mr Walsh discussed resident concerns expressed about noises heard in July at 14:00 hours and 16:00 hours but stated that music does not begin in the venue until 20:00 hours. Mr Walsh further stated that acoustic consultants had examined issues again and that it was unfair to characterise the situation as arising from a failing system. The position of D&D London and its consultants had come to an identification of the exact problem, namely the live music/limiter issue, which had been resolved, and the recorded music played through the DJ desk, which had now been fully assessed. Mr Walsh stated that there was absolute confidence now that the noise limiting device could be set at a level which satisfied the Environmental Health Team that noise nuisance would not result and because the noise limiting device was in a position where there would be consistent, reliable results.

 

Mr Walsh introduced the Licence Holder’s acoustic consultant, Mr Richard Vivian, who was familiar with the working practices of the City Council. Mr Vivian explained to the Sub-Committee that his expertise was specifically in music and entertainment noise. Mr Vivian stated that there was no question that all parties wanted the limiter to be set and work, that much ground had been covered in discussions of the irregularities and inconsistencies, and the need to remove acoustic drums and backline from the stage, and the need to reduce monitor levels on the stage through a comprehensive in-ear monitor system.

 

Mr Vivian clarified for the Sub-Committee points which had featured in the discussions. Mr Vivian clarified decibel measurements and changes in decibels and stated that under field conditions a three-decibel step would be audible, whereas 0.1 decibel was insignificant. Mr Vivian mentioned that every measurement mentioned during the review hearing, namely the A-weighted measurement, did not include base, though this had been used as an indicator even though it filtered out bass and was not a measure of the primary problem, namely bass. Mr Vivian referred to and agreed with Mr Drayan’s comment about testing, namely that when testing sound systems, this would be performed using the worst problem as the baseline for resolving the problem. Mr Vivian referred to the construction of the building, which was a conversion from the 1990s and observed that it had not been subjected to certain building regulation tests that would now be carried out and included a number of elements that made it more vulnerable to noise transmission, including bare steel and bare brick walls, in part due to the heritage nature of the site. Mr Vivian stated that, because of these structural considerations, it was essential that the operation of the Premises by the Licence Holder was to the gold standard of these limiters. It was stated that the limiter specified here was a BSS sound web limiter, a piece of hardware into which software is programmed. Mr Vivian had seen the limiter on 23rd October, set at the ‘silver standard’, perfectly adequate for most applications, but stated that because of the nature and complexity of this building there was an extra safety net, namely a two-stage limiter system which was now in place. Mr Vivian concluded that it was unfortunate that this had gone on, though not unique, but that observed that his suggestion of the two-stage limiter, which had now been implemented, was the ‘gold standard’.

 

The Sub-Committee clarified that the new system in place used the gold standard two-stage limiter, as described by Mr Vivian, which could not be bypassed and that there would be no use of drums. The Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee queried whether the industry had a definition of the ‘gold standard’ referred to. In reply Mr Vivian stated that there was not an industry definition as such but that this system was considered best practice and observed that he provided training to officers from other boroughs on how limiters are set and configured. Mr Vivian opined that it was his “tried and tested” gold standard. The Sub-Committee queried whether this two-stage limiter could be tampered with and who had access to it. The Sub-Committee also referred to images at page 55 of the Agenda papers, which indicated that some bands would bring in their own amps and mixing systems. The Sub-Committee was assured that management policy stipulated that no additional amplifiers would be brought inside the Premises. Mr Drayan referred to special conditions to overcome this problem, including management sign off that the band had been informed of the maximum music noise level for the audience, all amplified music to be played through the in-house sound system, any acoustic equipment to be limited to low-sound volume instrumentation: all this was to be assessed and signed off by management. Mr Walsh confirmed that bands were informed of conditions and could not bring their own equipment in at all for the purposes of amplification and that this had been the situation for some considerable time at the venue and explained that this was why the existing sound system had been invested in at a cost of £80,000 and why the management was happy to comply with the proposed condition. On the point of whether the limiter system could be by-passed, Mr Vivian further advised and assured the Sub-Committee that the limiter was a plain steel box in the equipment rack located away from any bands or DJs, there were no external control buttons, it was only accessible by a network interface to a PC with dedicated software and password protected, and that it was unlikely for interference or by-pass to be possible. Mr Walsh advised that this specific point had previously been made at the hearing in May and that Autograph had given evidence on this.

 

The Sub-Committee requested clarification as to the number of limiters. Mr Vivian advised that one limiter controls everything, namely the ratios, maintaining the controlled sound-levels throughout the areas under discussion. The Sub-Committee queried whether other measures existed, such as soundproofing, and whether more could be done. Mr Vivian and Mr Neil Jarman advised that following a fire, additional lining was put in and cladding of columns had been done, whilst noting that this was not to the level of a recording studio. Anil Drayan explained the difficulties of sound-proofing and noise escape. Mr Vivian advised that soft furnishings do not reduce the level of noise transmitted to other areas but that the building had functioned and could continue to function as a multi-use building with structurally connected operations. Anil Drayan observed that the base transmission was the cause of the issues in this review.

 

Mr Walsh presented the Sub-Committee with a set of Conditions and commented that the first condition listed reflected the provisions which had been requested by the Applicant and the Environmental Health Officer. He advised that a condition removing the deregulation provisions contained in section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 would be accepted and the request to replace Conditions 15, 16, 17 and 41 of the Premises Licence had been addressed within the proposed conditions. He advised that it was accepted that ‘inaudibility’ should be the appropriate condition, referring to the City Council’s Model Condition 11 and confirmed that advice would be sought from Environmental Health on appropriate sound levels.

 

Mr Walsh discussed compliance with, breach and enforcement of conditions, including noise abatement notices. Mr Walsh offered conditions, which had been proposed by schedule at the previous hearing, including no noise on orderly dispersal. He noted that the Police did not have concerns on this issue and that the Premises had amended its queuing, dispersal and smoking policies so as to ensure that there was SIA supervision of queues and that smoking was supervised in the designated area. Mr Walsh advised that a dedicated telephone number had been made available and would continue to be available. Mr Walsh expressed concern about the enforceability of the condition concerning acoustic instrumentation and following discussions this was amended to require no playing of acoustic drums. Mr Walsh stated that a condition which required the password for the noise limiter to be held solely by the installers would be acceptable and this measure would safeguard the Licence Holders from being accused of tampering with the device.

 

The Applicant referred to the testing conducted on 23rd October and pointed out that the highest live peak average was 96.4 decibels (at page 159). Mr Steele stated that it was live peak playing which would constitute nuisance. Mr Anil Drayan discussed testing figures versus live peak averages, which explained the use of the LEQ levels, not peak levels. Mr Drayan observed that in the weekends since the October testing there had been no nuisance reported and that Mr Steele’s flat was above the double-woofers. He explained that noise was not travelling through the building but was generally airborne sound and that this had complicated matters but stated that he was confident that they had resolved the issue now. Mr Drayan stated that, if these new measures were not effective, then the Premises would need to see with the residents whether additional measures were necessary over time.

 

The Applicant queried why the limiter had failed to limit in the past and Mr Drayan discussed the operation of the limiter. Mr Vivian explained that the limiter existed as a physical piece of hardware and that it needed to be programmed, in essence with a ‘music store’ of equipment. Mr Vivian explained that the new configuration contains a super limiter which will control everything, using the reference levels signed off on 23rd October.

 

Mr Brown observed that the resources which had been required for this matter had been onerous, including council officer time. Mr Brown referred to the Cole Jarman reports that there were different levels for different areas of the Premises and also to the 2017 levels, including for the Billiard Room, which had been lower. Mr Brown observed that the video clip evidence submitted had been for the atrium area. Mr Brown queried whether the music on the ground floor could be overridden. Mr Brown also summarised the testing history going back over decades and observed that there had been previous assurances that measures would result in resolution for the residents. He opined that using conditions would require trust, when there was evidence that certainty of resolution was necessary. Mr Brown stated that the Applicant would not want to lose Condition 14 of the Premises Licence under any circumstances and that whilst matters have improved it was still not resolved. He observed that it was taking too much on trust for a system that in his opinion only two or three people present understood. Mr Steele observed that there were limiter failings over many years and reported on 4th July.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the interests of residents as well as wider policy implications and noted that there had been a loss of live music venues in the West End. The Sub-Committee noted the assurances given by the Applicant as to the functionality of the limiter and the ongoing commitment that this was to be kept in proper working order and continually monitored so as to prevent nuisance.

 

 

 

Decision:

 

Having listened carefully to the evidence from all parties, the Sub-Committee considered that the review application had been both a difficult decision and a complex review. The Sub-Committee noted the technical evidence given by all parties in respect of the noise sound limiter but realises that it has to strike the right balance which will ultimately have the effect of promoting the licensing objectives as well as improving the lives of local residents. The Sub-Committee recognised the seriousness of the issues before it and that these issues had direct impact on residents’ quality of life in terms of noise nuisance they have suffered. The Sub-Committee took the view that the condition it imposed regarding the sound noise limiter (condition 42) would give some comfort to local residents that this is to be properly maintained and monitored by the operator and if there were any potential difficulties in the operator fulfilling their obligations under this specific condition Environmental Health should be advised of this.

 

The Sub-Committee had considered the evidence before it on its merits, in accordance with paragraphs 11.1-11.23 on pages 89-92 of the Revised Home Office Guidance (2018) and the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee had also considered technical evidence from Environmental Health and sound experts and, on the whole, was satisfied that the operator had taken proportionate and credible steps to deal with the issue of noise nuisance that residents had clearly endured for some considerable time. However, the Sub-Committee has to strike the right balance when considering what remedial action should be taken so as not to disadvantage either party and, on this occasion, felt that it was appropriate to impose conditions on the licence having regard to the powers it has available to it under section 52 (4) of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

It was the Sub-Committee’s considered view that the tests undertaken in Mr Steele’s home had revealed some elements of noise break out from the Premises whilst that test was being undertaken. However, the Sub-Committee was reassured by Mr Drayan’s evidence that appropriate levels had been firmly applied to the sound limiter and was reassured by the operator that these would be correctly applied hereafter and monitored in all areas of the Premises. The Sub-Committee having regard to all of the circumstances decided to impose additional conditions on the premises licence so as to ensure the promotion of the public nuisance licensing objective as set out below.

 

The Sub-Committee encouraged the operator and the residents to continue dialogue and work to improve the ongoing relationship. The Sub-Committee further stated that the Committee, the Council, Environmental Health, the wider Licensing team would be paying careful attention to ensure that the conditions now imposed on the premises licence were strictly adhered to. The Sub-Committee understood the strength of residents’ feelings and expressed the hope that the conditions set the standard, resulted in immediate improvement and strengthened the monitoring regime.

 

The Sub-Committee decided to impose a number of additional conditions on the Premises Licence that it considered appropriate and proportionate that would help promote the licensing objectives.

 

LICENCE

 

Licensable activities authorised by the licence:

 

Performance of Dance

Performance of Live Music

Playing of Recorded Music

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

Late Night Refreshment

Private Entertainment consisting of dancing, music or other entertainment of a like kind for consideration and with a view to profit

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

 

The times the licence authorises the carrying out of licensable activities:

 

Performance of Dance

            Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:00

 

Performance of Live Music

            Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:00

 

Playing of Recorded Music

 

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

            Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:00

 

Late Night Refreshment

            Monday to Wednesday:          23:00 to 02:30

            Thursday to Saturday:            23:00 to 03:30

 

Private Entertainment consisting of dancing, music or other entertainment of a like kind for consideration and with a view to profit

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

            Monday to Wednesday:          10:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            10:00 to 03:00

            Sunday:                                   12:00 to 22:30

 

For times authorised for Christmas, New Year and Good Friday see conditions

 

The opening hours of the premises:

 

Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:30

Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:30

Sunday:                                   12:00 to 23:00

 

 

Where the licence authorises supplies of alcohol, whether these are on and/or off supplies:

 

Alcohol is supplied for consumption both on and off the Premises.

 

 

CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE LICENCE

 

Mandatory Conditions:

 

1. No supply of alcohol may be made at a time when there is no designated premises supervisor in respect of this licence.

 

2. No supply of alcohol may be made at a time when the designated premises supervisor does not hold a personal licence, or the personal licence is suspended.

 

3. Every supply of alcohol under this licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence.

 

4.        

(1) The responsible person must ensure that staff on relevant premises do not                                                                                                                                                               carry out, arrange or participate in any irresponsible promotions in relation to the premises.

 

(2) In this paragraph, an irresponsible promotion means any one or more of the following activities, or substantially similar activities, carried on for the purpose of encouraging the sale or supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises —

           

(a) games or other activities which require or encourage, or are designed to require or encourage, individuals to:

 

(i) drink a quantity of alcohol within a time limit (other than to drink alcohol sold or supplied on the premises before the cessation of the period in which the responsible person is authorised to sell or supply alcohol), or

 

(ii) drink as much alcohol as possible (whether within a time limit or otherwise);

 

(b) provision of unlimited or unspecified quantities of alcohol free or for a fixed or discounted fee to the public or to a group defined by a particular characteristic in a manner which carries a significant risk of undermining a licensing objective;

 

(c) provision of free or discounted alcohol or any other thing as a prize to encourage or reward the purchase and consumption of alcohol over a period of 24 hours or less in a manner which carries a significant risk of undermining a licensing objective;

 

(d) selling or supplying alcohol in association with promotional posters or flyers on, or in the vicinity of, the premises which can reasonably be considered to condone, encourage or glamorise anti-social behaviour or to refer to the effects of    drunkenness in any favourable manner;

 

(e) dispensing alcohol directly by one person into the mouth of another (other than where that other person is unable to drink without assistance by reason of a disability).

 

5. The responsible person must ensure that free potable water is provided on request to customers where it is reasonably available.

 

6.        

(1) The premises licence holder or club premises certificate holder must ensure that an age verification policy is adopted in respect of the premises in relation to the sale or supply of alcohol.

 

(2) The designated premises supervisor in relation to the premises licence must ensure that the supply of alcohol at the premises is carried on in accordance with the age verification policy.

 

(3) The policy must require individuals who appear to the responsible person to be under 18 years of age (or such older age as may be specified in the policy) to produce on request, before being served alcohol, identification bearing their photograph, date of birth and either—

(a) a holographic mark, or

(b) an ultraviolet feature.

 

7. The responsible person must ensure that—

 

(a) where any of the following alcoholic drinks is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises (other than alcoholic drinks sold or supplied having been made up in advance ready for sale or supply in a securely closed container) it is available to customers in the following measures—

 

(i)              beer or cider: ½ pint;

 

(ii)             gin, rum, vodka or whisky: 25 ml or 35 ml; and

 

                        (iii)       still wine in a glass: 125 ml;

           

(b) these measures are displayed in a menu, price list or other printed material which is available to customers on the premises; and

 

(c) where a customer does not in relation to a sale of alcohol specify the quantity of alcohol to be sold, the customer is made aware that these measures are available.

           

A responsible person in relation to a licensed premises means the holder of the premise licence in respect of the premises, the designated premises supervisor (if any) or any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised by either the licence holder or designated premises supervisor. For premises with a club premises certificate, any member or officer of the club present on the premises in a capacity that which enables him to prevent the supply of alcohol.

 

8(i) A relevant person shall ensure that no alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises for a price which is less than the permitted price.

           

8(ii) For the purposes of the condition set out in paragraph 8(i) above

 

(a)   "duty" is to be construed in accordance with the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979;

 

(b)   "permitted price" is the price found by applying the formula –

 

            P = D+(DxV)

 

Where -

(i) P is the permitted price,

(ii) D is the amount of duty chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the duty were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol, and

(iii) V is the rate of value added tax chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the   value added tax were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol;

(c) "relevant person" means, in relation to premises in respect of which there is in             force a premises licence –

 

(i) the holder of the premises licence,

(ii) the designated premises supervisor (if any) in respect of such a licence, or

(iii) the personal licence holder who makes or authorises a supply of alcohol under such a licence;

 

(d) "relevant person" means, in relation to premises in respect of which there is in force a club premises certificate, any member or officer of the club present on the premises in a capacity which enables the member or officer to prevent the supply in question; and

           

(e) "value added tax" means value added tax charged in accordance with the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

 

8(iii). Where the permitted price given by Paragraph 8(ii)(b) above would (apart from this paragraph) not be a whole number of pennies, the price given by that sub-paragraph shall be taken to be the price actually given by that sub-paragraph rounded up to the nearest penny.

 

8(iv). (1) Sub-paragraph 8(iv)(2) below applies where the permitted price given by Paragraph 8(ii)(b) above on a day ("the first day") would be different from the permitted price on the next day ("the second day") as a result of a change to the rate of duty or value added tax.

 

(2) The permitted price which would apply on the first day applies to sales or supplies of alcohol which take place before the expiry of the period of 14 days beginning on the second day.

 

9. All persons guarding premises against unauthorised access or occupation or against outbreaks of disorder or against damage (door supervisors) must be licensed by the Security Industry Authority.

 

Conditions relating to regulated entertainment

 

10. This licence is subject to all the former Rules of Management for Places of Public Entertainment licensed by Westminster City Council, in force from 4 September 1998 and incorporating amendments agreed by the Council on 25 October 1999, 30 June 2000, 16 January 2001 and 1 October 2001.

 

11. On New Year’s Eve the premises can remain open for the purpose of providing regulated entertainment from the time when the provision of regulated entertainment must otherwise cease on New Year’s Eve to the time when regulated entertainment can commence on New Year’s Day (or until midnight on New Year’s Eve where no regulated entertainment takes place on New Year’s Day).

 

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule of Management No. 6, the premises may be kept open under this licence from 23:00 on each of the days Monday to Wednesday to 02:00 on the day following and from 23:00 on each of the days Thursday to Saturday to 03:00 on the day following.

 

13. An attendant shall be on duty in the ground floor Cloakroom the whole time it is in use.

 

14. Music levels shall be maintained at such level as is specified by Environmental Health from time to time so as to ensure that music shall not be audible nor otherwise cause nuisance to occupiers of the residential properties above.

 

15. Without prejudice to condition 14 above, a noise limiter shall be fitted to the musical amplification system in agreement and to the satisfaction of officers from the Environmental Health noise section. The operational panel shall be secured and the system shall not be altered without prior agreement with the Environmental Health Officer.

 

16. No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be effected without prior knowledge of an authorised Officer of the Environmental Health Department.

 

17. Any additional sound generating equipment shall not be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter.

 

18. That on the ground floor music is limited either to:

 

(a)   The playing of pre-recorded music until 01:00 only; or

(b)   Premises management through the dedicated DJ station until 01:00 only; or

(c)   Live performance of unamplified acoustic music (not to exceed five musicians at any one time) until 00:00 midnight only.

 

19. All refuse is stored off the public highway outside of designated collection hours.

 

20. Bottles and glass shall not be deposited outside the premises after 22:00 and before 08:00.

 

21. The pavement from the building line to the kerb edge, and to include the gutter/channel at its junction with the kerb edge, in the vicinity of the premises is swept at regular intervals whilst customers are queuing to enter the premises, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements.

 

22. At the close of business each day the premises are open for business, the licensee shall ensure that the pavement from the building line to the kerb edge immediately outside the premises, and to include the gutter/channel at its junction with the kerb edge, is swept and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements.

 

23. No unauthorised advertisements of any kind (including placard, poster, sticker, flyer, picture, letter, sign or other mark) is inscribed or affixed upon the surface of the highway, or upon any building, structure, works, street furniture, tree, or any other property, or is distributed on street to the public, that advertises or promotes the establishment, its premises, or any of its events, facilities, goods or services.

 

24. Any door supervisor employed at the premises shall be registered with Westminster City Council.

 

25. The number of persons accommodated at any one time (excluding staff) shall not exceed: Basement – 412, Ground Floor – 460.

 

Conditions for Sale of Alcohol

 

26.     Substantial food and suitable beverages other than intoxicating liquor (including drinking water) shall be available during the whole of the permitted hours in all parts of the premises where intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied.

 

27. No striptease, no nudity and all persons on the premises to be decently attired.

 

28. There shall be no payment made by or on behalf of the licensees to any person for bringing customers to the premises.

 

29. There shall be no gaming on the premises, other than machines authorised by Part III of the Gaming Act 1968 or by the Licensing Justices in accordance with Section 6 of the Gaming Act 1968.

 

30. Where persons are admitted to the premises by prior invitation, to a bona fide function or as specifically invited guests of the proprietor, a list of their names shall be kept at reception for inspection by the Police.

 

Conditions which reproduce the effect of any restriction imposed on the use of the premises by specified enactments

 

31. Mondays to Saturdays:

(a) Subject to the following paragraphs, the permitted hours shall commence at 10:00 and extend until 02:00 Monday to Wednesday and to 03:00 Thursday to Saturday the following morning except-

 

(i) the permitted hours shall end at midnight on any day on which music and dancing is not provided after midnight; and

(ii) on any day that music and dancing end between 00:00 midnight and 02:00 Monday to Wednesday and to 03:00 Thursday to Saturday the following morning, the permitted hours shall end when the music and dancing end.

 

(b) In relation to the morning on which summer time begins, paragraph (a) of this condition shall have effect-

 

(i) with the substitution of reference to 04:00 for reference to 03:00.

 

(c) The sale of alcohol must be ancillary to the use of the premises for music and dancing and substantial refreshment.

 

(d) The permitted hours on New Year’s Eve will extend to the start of permitted hours on the following day, or if there are no permitted hours on 1 January, to 00:00 on New Year’s Eve.

 

NOTE – The above restrictions do not prohibit:

 

a) during the first 30 minutes after the above hours, the consumption of alcohol on the premises;

 

b) during the first 20 minutes after the above hours, the taking of alcohol from the premises unless the alcohol is supplied or taken in an open vessel;

 

c) the sale or supply of alcohol to or the consumption of alcohol by any person residing in the licensed premises;

 

d) the ordering of alcohol to be consumed off the premises, or the despatch by the vendor of the alcohol so ordered;

 

e) the sale of alcohol to a trader or registered club for the purposes of the trade or club;

 

f) the sale or supply of alcohol to any canteen or mess, being a canteen in which the sale or supply of alcohol is carried out under the authority of the Secretary of State or an authorised mess of members of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces;

 

g) the taking of alcohol from the premises by a person residing there;

 

h) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, or the consumption of alcohol by persons so supplied;

 

i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to persons employed there for the purposes of the business carried on by the holder of the licence, or the consumption of liquor so supplied, if the liquor is supplied at the expense of their employer or of the person carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

In this condition, any reference to a person residing in the premises shall be construed as including a person not residing there but carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

Sunday

(a) On Sundays, other than Christmas Day or New Year’s Eve, 12:00 noon to 22:30;

(b) On New Year’s Eve on a Sunday, 12:00 to 22: 30;

(c) On New Year’s Eve from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on the following day (or, if there are no permitted hours on the following day, 00:00 midnight on 31st December. 

 

NOTE – The above restrictions do not prohibit:

 

a) during the first 20 minutes after the above hours, the consumption of alcohol on the premises;

 

b) during the first 20 minutes after the above hours, the taking of alcohol from the premises unless the alcohol is supplied or taken in an open vessel;

 

c) during the first 30 minutes after the above hours, the consumption of alcohol on the premises by persons taking table meals there if the alcohol was supplied for consumption as ancillary to the meals;

 

d) the sale or supply of alcohol to or the consumption of alcohol by any person residing in the licensed premises;

 

e) the ordering of alcohol to be consumed off the premises, or the despatch by the vendor of the alcohol so ordered;

 

f) the sale of alcohol to a trader or registered club for the purposes of the trade or club;

 

g) the sale or supply of alcohol to any canteen or mess, being a canteen in which the sale or supply of alcohol is carried out under the authority of the Secretary of State or an authorised mess of members of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces;

h) the taking of alcohol from the premises by a person residing there;

 

i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, or the consumption of alcohol by persons so supplied;

 

i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to persons employed there for the purposes of the business carried on by the holder of the licence, or the consumption of liquor so supplied, if the liquor is supplied at the expense of their employer or of the person carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

In this condition, any reference to any person residing in the premises shall be construed as including a person not residing there but carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

32. No person under 14 shall be in the bar of the licensed premises during the permitted hours unless one of the following applies:

 

a) he is the child of the holder of the premises licence;

b) he resides in the premises but is not employed there;

c) he is in the bar solely for the purpose of passing to or from some part of the premises which is not a bar and to or from which there is no other convenient means of access or egress; or

d) the bar is in railway refreshment rooms or other premises constructed, fitted and intended to be used bona fide for any purpose to which the holding of the licence is ancillary.

 

In this condition "bar" includes any place exclusively or mainly used for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. But an area is not a bar when it is usual for it to be, and it is, set apart for the service of table meals and alcohol is only sold or supplied to persons as an ancillary to their table meals.

 

33. If any entertainment is provided for children or if an entertainment is provided at which the majority of persons attending are children, then, if the number of children attending the entertainment exceeds 100, it shall be the duty of the holder of the premises licence:

 

a) to station and keep stationed wherever necessary a sufficient number of adult attendants, properly instructed as to their duties, to prevent more children or other persons being admitted to the building, or to any part thereof, than the building or part can properly accommodate,

b) to control the movement of the children and other persons admitted while entering and leaving the building or any part thereof, and

c) to take all other reasonable precautions for the safety of the children.

 

34. The terminal hour for late night refreshment on New Year’s Eve is extended to 05:00 on New Year’s Day.

 

Conditions attached by the Licensing Authority after a hearing

 

35. The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

 

36. A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

 

37. An accident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of Westminster City Council or the Police, which will record the following:

 

a) all crimes reported to the venue;

b) all ejections of patrons;

c) any complaints received;

d) any incidents of disorder;

e) all seizures of drug or offensive weapons;

f) any faults in the CCTV system or searching equipment or scanning equipment;

g) any refusal of the sale of alcohols;

h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

 

38. On the Basement Floor, no glass drinking vessels shall be served and used within the Bar Area (shown marked on the licensing drawing L91 revision A dated 25 October 2005).

 

39. All glass bottles in the basement Floor Bar Area (shown marked on the licensing drawing L91 revision A dated 25 October 2005) are to be decanted into polycarbonate or non-glass vessels after 23:00 with the exception of champagne or bottles of spirits with a minimum size of 70cl supplied by waiter/waitress service to tables. Staff will clear all empty champagne and spirit bottles promptly. Customers shall not be permitted to carry bottles from the table/Bar Area.

 

40.  The proposed new area shall be covered by no more than two CCTV cameras.

 

41.  All speakers in the new area will be routed through the existing noise limiters in accordance with conditions 16 and 17 of the existing Premises Licence.

 

42.  A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system set at a level determined by and to the satisfaction of an authorised officer of the Environmental Health Service, so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses. The operational panel of the noise limiter shall then be secured by key or password to the satisfaction of officers from the Environmental Health Service and access shall only be by persons authorised by the Premises Licence holder. The limiter shall not be altered without prior agreement with the Environmental Health Service. No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be effected without prior knowledge of an authorised Officer of the Environmental Health Service. No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.

 

43.  No noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment, shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

 

44.  All windows and external doors shall be kept closed after 21:00 hours, or at any time when regulated entertainment takes place, except for the immediate access and egress of persons.

 

45. Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

 

46. Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall be limited to three (3) persons at any one time monitored by one SIA door supervisor.

 

47. A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises are open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

 

48. The licence holder shall ensure that any queue to enter the premises which forms outside the premises is orderly and supervised by door staff so as to ensure that there is no public nuisance or obstruction to the public highway.

 

49. Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them.

 

50. Anytime that a band plays at the premises, a member of management shall sign this off after assessing the following has been satisfactorily carried out:

i) band informed of maximum music noise level for the audience;

ii) all amplified music to be played through the in-house sound system;

iii) any acoustic equipment shall be limited to low sound volume instrumentation (such as tambourines, flutes, etc);

iv) a record of this sign-off shall be kept for at least six (6) months and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Council; and

v) there shall be no playing of loud acoustic drums at the premises.

 

Condition on the disapplication of section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003

 

51. Section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the performance of live music will not apply.

 

 

 

Wards affected: West End;


02/03/2020 - St Marylebone Bridge Special School ref: 1161    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 02/03/2020

Effective from: 02/03/2020

Decision:

1.         That the Cabinet Members for Economic Development, Education and Skills, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Housing Services:

 

i.       Noted the grant of Planning Permission on 12th November 2019 for the new special school on part of the site of Wilberforce Primary Academy

 

ii.     Approved the Heads of Terms agreed by the Council and United Learning Trust (ULT), including payment of up to £1.875M to ULT for building works at Wilberforce Primary Academy (including VAT if charged) together with additional contributions from SEN capital grant and Community Infrastructure Levy.

 

iii.    Approved taking a surrender of the existing 125-year lease of the Wilberforce Primary Academy school site and the grant of new 125-year leases to Wilberforce Primary Academy and St Marylebone Bridge Special School.

 

iv.    Terminated the Agreement for Lease of a small parcel of land in the Housing Revenue Account which is within the curtilage of the school site, and approve its appropriation from the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund

 

v.     Authorised the Director of Law to negotiate and sign the Agreement for Lease on the terms set out by the Secretary of State for Education in respect of the Special School

 

vi.    Noted that the Council have invited tenders and selected a contractor from the DfE Framework and a further recommendation will be brought forward in accordance with the Council’s usual procedures.

 

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Housing Services agreed to delegate further negotiations to the Executive Director of Children Services, the Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing and the Director of Law.        

 

3.         That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills and the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property authorise the Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing and the Bi-Borough Director of Law to implement the recommendations set out in the report.

 

 

 

 

Reasons for Decision

 

Planning permission was granted for the new special school to be built at the site of Wilberforce Primary Academy on 12 November 2019. The Council has entered into a Self-Delivery Agreement with the DfE to construct the school within the DfE’s budget. Tenders have been invited and a contractor has been selected. The Council has agreed the terms for a surrender of that part of the existing Wilberforce Primary Academy site required for the special school and for two new 125-year leases: one for Wilberforce Primary Academy and the other for St Marylebone Bridge Special School. Approval is sought for a series of actions required to give effect to the project.

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

2 March 2020

Implementation Date:

 

9 March 2020 at 5pm

Reference:

 

CMfEDE&S, CMfHS, CMfFP&R/7/2019/20

 

Lead officer: Alan Wharton


02/03/2020 - Redevelopment of St Marylebone Bridge Special School ref: 1629    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for redevelopment of St Marylebone Bridge Special School.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills

Decision published: 02/03/2020

Effective from: 10/03/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

1.         That the Cabinet Members for Economic Development, Education and Skills, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Housing Services:

 

i.       Noted the grant of Planning Permission on 12th November 2019 for the new special school on part of the site of Wilberforce Primary Academy

 

ii.     Approved the Heads of Terms agreed by the Council and United Learning Trust (ULT), including payment of up to £1.875M to ULT for building works at Wilberforce Primary Academy (including VAT if charged) together with additional contributions from SEN capital grant and Community Infrastructure Levy.

 

iii.    Approved taking a surrender of the existing 125-year lease of the Wilberforce Primary Academy school site and the grant of new 125-year leases to Wilberforce Primary Academy and St Marylebone Bridge Special School.

 

iv.    Terminated the Agreement for Lease of a small parcel of land in the Housing Revenue Account which is within the curtilage of the school site, and approve its appropriation from the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund

 

v.     Authorised the Director of Law to negotiate and sign the Agreement for Lease on the terms set out by the Secretary of State for Education in respect of the Special School

 

vi.    Noted that the Council have invited tenders and selected a contractor from the DfE Framework and a further recommendation will be brought forward in accordance with the Council’s usual procedures.

 

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Housing Services agreed to delegate further negotiations to the Executive Director of Children Services, the Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing and the Director of Law.

 

3.         That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills and the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property authorise the Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing and the Bi-Borough Director of Law to implement the recommendations set out in the report.

 

 

 

 

Reasons for Decision

 

Planning permission was granted for the new special school to be built at the site of Wilberforce Primary Academy on 12 November 2019. The Council has entered into a Self-Delivery Agreement with the DfE to construct the school within the DfE’s budget. Tenders have been invited and a contractor has been selected. The Council has agreed the terms for a surrender of that part of the existing Wilberforce Primary Academy site required for the special school and for two new 125-year leases: one for Wilberforce Primary Academy and the other for St Marylebone Bridge Special School. Approval is sought for a series of actions required to give effect to the project.

 


24/02/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 14.01.2020: Determination of National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications ref: 1158    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 24/02/2020

Effective from: 24/02/2020

Decision:

1.              That this report and appendices be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraph 3, as amended, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of an individual.

 

2.       That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel held on 14th January 2020 and determined the applications for National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary relief as set out in Appendix A of the report.

Reasons for Decision

 

The Rating Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A of the report.

 

Lead officer: Susan Bush


24/02/2020 - Approval of Annual Rents and Charges in the Housing Revenue Account for 2020-21 ref: 1156    Recommendations Approved

Report to seek approval to change rents in line with Legislation and the Government’s Policy statement on rents for social housing. To set the Housing Revenue Account tenant rents and other charges for the financial year 2020/21. The City Council is required by law to give tenants at least 28 days’ notice of any variation to the rent charged.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Hsg Services

Decision published: 24/02/2020

Effective from: 24/02/2020

Decision:

1.                        That in order to comply with the provisions of The Rents for Social Housing policy for 2020/21, the Cabinet Member for Housing Services approved an increase of the Housing Revenue Accounts (HRA) rents by 2.7% from the 6April 2020.

2.                        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services noted that the Council continues to exercise its discretion under the rent restructuring policy to set rents for new tenants and transfers on all re-lets at formula target rent from Monday 6 April2020.

3.                        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services gave approval for tenant service charges be varied in line with estimated actual costs for 2020/21 from Monday 6April 2020.

4.                        That the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways gave approval for charges for car parking and parking spaces to be increased by 2.4% (RPI as at September 2019) from Monday 6April  2020.

5.                        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services gave approval for charges for sheds and garages to be increased by 2.4% (RPI as at September 2019) from Monday 6April  2020.

Reasons for Decision

 

To set the HRA tenant rents and other charges for the financial year 2020/21. The City Council is required by law to give tenants at least 28 days’ notice of any variation to the rentcharged.

 


17/02/2020 - Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation ref: 1153    Recommendations Approved

A report to recommend the re-designation of the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 17/02/2020

Decision:

2.0      RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1      That the Cabinet Member for Business and Planning agreed to re-designate the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice will be published under delegated authority of the Director of Policy and Projects.

 

3.0      REASONS FOR DECISION 

3.1        Section 61F (7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted into the Act by the Localism Act, Schedule 9) sets out the conditions that a neighbourhood forum must meet, as well as the considerations that a local planning authority must take into account when determining an application for the designation of a neighbourhood forum.

 

3.2        The legislation states that a local planning authority may designate an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum if the authority is satisfied that a number of conditions (in the table below) have been met. The existing Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum meets all of these conditions, and there has been no change in this since the original designation.

 

Condition

Met?

Established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic or environmental well-being of an area?

Yes

Membership open to individuals who live or work in the area (or are elected members of the City Council);

Yes

Membership includes a minimum of 21 individuals each of whom lives or works (or is an elected member) in the area?

Yes

The neighbourhood forum has a written constitution?

Yes

 

3.3        The City Council is also required to have regard to whether membership is drawn from different places in the neighbourhood area concerned and from different sections of the community in that area. The application submitted by the Forum indicates that membership of the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum stands at over 200 members, and that the Forum represents the interests of local residents and businesses, including the New West End Company (NWEC). The list of members has also been provided by the Forum.

 

3.4        The City Council is also required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects (in general terms) the character of the area. The application submitted by the Forum for re-designation states that the Forum was established to promote, enhance and improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the area. It also makes clear that the continued preparation of a neighbourhood plan that addresses planning and development matters, public realm improvement projects, and environmental policies, is a priority for the Forum. The Forum has already carried out significant work on the neighbourhood plan and have carried out consultation on a draft plan in the Summer 2019. The main purpose for the existence of the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum is therefore stronger now than when it was initially designated.

 

 

3.5      Consultation on the re-designation of the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum highlighted support for the application, no objections, or competing applications. Further details are provided in section 9 of this report.

 

Wards affected: Marylebone; West End;

Lead officer: Michela Leoni


17/02/2020 - Westminster Hospital Green Plaque ref: 1152    Recommendations Approved

Commemorative Green Plaque for Westminster Hospital at Westminster Green, 8 Dean Ryle Street, Horseferry Road, SW1P 4DA

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 17/02/2020

Effective from: 17/02/2020

Decision:

Notice is hereby given that the Cabinet Member for Business and Planning has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reason set out below.

 

Summary of Decision

 

That the nomination for a Green Plaque to commemorate the former Middlesex Hospital Medical School be approved. 

 

Reasons for decision

 

A Green Plaque will mark the valuable research that took place in the city’s former hospital and the contribution it made to world medicine. The identification of the hormone Aldosterone stimulated a new period of research into the regulation of salt and water balance, blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. Doctors and scientists across the world continue to study the hormone and more than 40,000 papers have been published.

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

17 February 2020

Implementation Date:

17 February 2020

Reference:

 

CMf B&P/2/2019-20

 

Wards affected: Vincent Square;

Lead officer: Claire Appleby


17/02/2020 - Lisson Grove Office, Frampton Street London NW8 ref: 1151    Recommendations Approved

The refurbishment of Ground, Mezzanine and First floor offices

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 17/02/2020

Effective from: 25/02/2020

Decision:

1.               That this report is exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3 (as amended) in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings under paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the capital spend against the Lisson Grove Refurbishment Programme budget for the costs as detailed in the report and noted the revenue spend for decant costs.

 

3.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration delegated authority to the Director of Corporate Finance and Property to procure, agree contracts and appoint consultants and building contractors for the Lisson Grove Refurbishment Contract.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The rationale for supporting this decision is as follows:

 

(1)        The refurbishment will provide an improved, more modern and agile working environment for staff that champions the Westminster Way of working enabling staff to deliver the very best for our residents.

(2)       Deliver our “City For All” vision by providing our residents and visitors a smarter and improved environment to access our services.

(3)       Contribute to the regeneration of the Church Street area.

Wards affected: Church Street;

Lead officer: Anne McCann, Steven Morrice