Decisions

7.1      The Committee received an overview of the standards and delivery of improvements in the housing service, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, from Neil Wightman, (Director of Housing).

 

7.2      The Committee discussed issues including significant reductions in repairs during the pandemic, communications with tenant residents, dealing with anti-social behaviour; and engagement relating to tenancy fraud. The Committee heard that major works had had to stop as residents were on site due to Covid-19 restrictions and that a larger number of people were claiming Universal Credit Benefit.

 

7.3      The Committee further discussed the work of a scrutiny task group committee in 2018 which had examined City West Homes (CWH), the corporate culture and staff turnover at CWH and resourcing within the Council to deal with tenancy fraud. Neil Wightman advised the Committee that the City Council was sufficiently resourced and David Hughes observed that the Fraud Team worked closely with the Housing team.

 

Erection of an electrical substation to rear of new building and associated works including protective fencing.

 

Charles Winch addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the Application.

 

RESOLVED: (For Councillors Robert Rigby, Tony Devenish, Councillor Mark Shearer: Against Councillor Tim Roca)

 

1.     That conditional permission under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 be granted.

 

2.     That an Informative be included which encourages the use of greening on the External Treatment.

6.1.      The Committee received a report from Anna Raleigh, Director of Public Health, on obesity in Westminster. It was noted that the Council had launched the “Tackling Childhood Obesity Together” programme which demonstrated that a place-based approach was required and formed the basis of the current Change4Life Programme.

 

6.2.      The Committee reflected that tackling obesity was complex and multifaceted. Members discussed what levers the Council had to involve businesses.

 

6.3.      The Committee discussed the importance of joint working between Council directorates. Officers provided an example of effective cross-council working such as ensuring streets are well-lit so that residents felt safer to walk around the City.

 

6.4.      The Committee reflected on the Council’s physical health offer. Concerns were raised by Members regarding the lack of free indoor leisure activities during the winter and whether more after school clubs could be encouraged.

 

6.5.      Members further raised concerns that the report focused too much on encouraging physical activity and not enough on educating residents about healthy diets. Officers informed the Committee that the Change4Life programme was a whole-family approach and focused on supporting children, young people, families and carers to lead healthier and happier lives.

 

6.6.      The Committee also discussed the difficulty of reducing obesity rates. Senior Officers reflected that the Council needed to change its approach to tackling obesity and that a whole-systems approach would be required, with multi-agency working across the CCG and Northwest London.

 

Actions

1.         Scrutiny Officers to begin scoping for a Task Group on obesity in Westminster.

3.1.      The minutes of the meeting on 15th July 2021 were approved after requests for corrections.

 

3.2.      The first correction was in section 4.8 of the minutes to clarify which ‘Harris School’ was referred too. It was agreed that the minutes would be updated to include ‘Harris School Westminster Sixth Form.’

 

3.3.      The second correction was in section 6.1 of the minutes in reference to the discussion on the Healthwatch report. The Chairman wanted it reflected in the minutes that the Committee wanted more quantitative data from Healthwatch. It was discussed that Healthwatch has limited resources and might not be able to provide aggregated data, but they do provide qualitative analysis.

 

3.4.      The third correction was in section 7.8 of the minutes in reference to the use of the word ‘unanimous’, this word will be removed. The Chairman also asked that, when referencing the closure of the Gordon Hospital, the word, “temporary” be inserted in, so that the minutes read, “the temporary closure of the Gordon Hospital”.

1.1       There were no changes to the membership.

 

Demolition of the existing buildings, construction of part 4, part 5 and part 6 storey building to create ground floor commercial space and twenty five, 1-bedroom flats with private balconies, bicycle storage, refuse storage and communal roof terrace.

 

Late representations were received from:

 

Councillor Dimoldenberg 06.03.2022

Councillor McAllister 07.03.2022

Parish of St John the Evangelist at Kensal Green 07.03.2022

WCC Affordable Housing Manager 07.03.2022

WCC Tree Memo 07.03.2022

WCC Officer Memo 08.03.2022

 

RESOLVED

 

(FOR Councillors Robert Rigby, Jim Glen, Louise Hyams and Mark Shearer: AGAINST Councillor David Boothroyd: ABSTAINED Councillor Geoff Barraclough)

 

1. Grant conditional permission, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure:-

 

a) Provision of 25, one bedroom intermediate homes for rent, let at London Living Rents, with tenancies for a maximum period of five years.

b) A financial contribution of £7,500.00 towards the Westminster Employment Service (index linked and payable on commencement of development.

c) A financial contribution of £27,520 towards Carbon Offset Fund (index linked and payable on commencement of development).

d) All highway works immediately surrounding the site required for the development to occur prior to occupation of the development, including reinstatement of the existing vehicle crossovers (Harrow Road and St John’s Terrace) as footway and creation of on-street parking bays and electric vehicle charging point (subject to detail design and the approval of the Highway Authority). Threshold level checks prior to commencement of development. All of the above to the Council’s specification, at full cost (administrative, legal, and physical) of the developer.

e) Lifetime Car Club Membership for Residential Occupiers from first occupation of the development. (Car Club operator must be a CarPlus member).

f) Monitoring costs

 

2.If the s106 agreement has not been completed within 3 months from the date of the Committee's resolution then:

 

a) the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning shall consider whether the permission can be issued with additional conditions attached to secure the benefits listed above. If this is possible and appropriate, the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning is authorised to determine and issue such a decision under Delegated Powers; however, if not

b) the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning shall consider whether permission should be refused on the grounds that is has not proved possible to complete an agreement within an appropriate timescale, and that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of benefits that would have been secured; if so the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning is authorised to determine the application and agree appropriate reasons for refusal under Delegated Powers.

 

3. An informative requesting that terraces be kept free from clutter.

 

 

Refurbishment and reconfiguration of the existing Bush House South West Wing including an extension at roof level, rear extension; minor demolition works associated with internal and external alterations to provide class E at ground floor and dual alternative use for either Class E (office) or Class F1 (educational) at basement, part ground floor and first to tenth floor, outdoor terraces, hard and soft landscaping and associated works.

 

Late representations were received from:

 

Blythe Dunk (08/03/2022)

Hannah Willcock (08/03/2022)

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY 

 

1. Grant conditional permission, subject to a s106 legal agreement to secure the following:

 

a) A financial contribution of £281,580 (index linked) towards the City Council's Carbon Off Set fund (payable prior to the commencement of the development);

b) Monitoring and reporting on the actual operational energy performance of the building, including as built and in-use stage data;

c) In the event the office use is implemented, a financial contribution of £132,000 (index linked) towards initiatives that provide local employment, training opportunities and skills development and supporting the Westminster Employment Service (payable prior to the commencement of the development);

d) Measures to protect the trees adjacent to the site during the works; and e) The costs of monitoring the S106 agreement.

 

2. If the legal agreement has not been completed within six weeks of the date of the Committee resolution, then:

 

a) The Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning shall consider whether the permission can be issued with additional conditions attached to secure the benefits listed above. If this is possible and appropriate, the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning is authorised to determine and issue such a decision under Delegated Powers; however, if not

b) The Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning shall consider whether permission should be refused on the grounds that it has not proved possible to complete an agreement within the appropriate timescale, and that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the benefits that would have been secured; if so, the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning is authorised to determine the application and agree appropriate reasons for refusal under Delegated Powers.

 

1.   Amend draft condition 11 to restrict the use of roof terrace to 08:00 - 20:00hrs.

 

 

 

Demolition of existing Travis Perkins building(s) on the Site at 149 Harrow Road, erection of a new building (plus basement) comprising reprovision of builder’s merchant (Sui Generis) and student accommodation (Sui Generis), ancillary community space (Sui Generis) and student amenity terraces above, together with public realm works to Harrow Road and the creation of a canal side path with landscaping. Provision of cycle parking and car parking for the builder’s merchant. Relocation of bus shelter on Harrow Road. Works associated with the creation of new public walkway under Bishops Bridge Road bridge. Installation of plant equipment photo voltaic panels and other associated works. [The development is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment].

 

Additional representations were received from:

 

Mr Mark Brown - Email (18/02/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Letter 08/03/2021)

Mr Mark Brown - Email (24/03/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Letter (06/04/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – email (24/04/2021)

Mr Mark Brown – Email (26/04/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Email (08/05/2021)

Mr Mark Brown – Email (10/05/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Email (10/05/2021)

Mr Mark Brown – email (26/05/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Email (01/06/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Email (07/06/2021)

Mr Mark Brown – Email (08/06/2021)

Mr Mark Brown – Email (26/11/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Email (30/11/2021)

Mr Mark Brown – (22/12/2021)

Mr Bruce Blair – Letter (05/01/2022)

Mr Joe McNally (29/07/2021)

Mariam Ali-Puttergill (29/07/2021)

Ms Kiko Thiel (14/09/21)

Dr Sumon Halder (30/09/2021)

Mr Vincent Yariv (27/10/2021)

Ms Cath Griffith (21/10/2021)

Mr James Robertson (21/10/2021)

Mr Richard Alford (25/10/2021)

Miss Alison Ross (25/10/2021)

Mr Peter Cross (26/10/2021)

Miss Rebecca Osborne (28/10/2021)

Mrs Nicky Hessenberg (29/11/2021)

Miss Karen Eaton (30/11/2021)

Mr Roger Lynn (30/11/2021)

Miss Jemma Japhet (01/12/2021)

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Ms Judith Southern and Md Chowdhury (03/12/2021)

Mr Harry Aitken (03/12/2021)

Mrs Tatiana von der Pahlen (03/12/2021)

Mr Nawaz Haukim (04/12/2021)

Councillor Matthew Green (05/12/2022)

Mr Ian Bates (05/12/2022)

Mr Iain Kennedy (06/12/2021)

Ms Michelle Kathryn Essomé (07/12/2021)

Mr James Cooper (25/02/2022)

Councillor Matthew Green, Councillor Melvyn Caplan and Councillor Lorraine Dean (28/02/2022)

Ms Jan Radisic (01/03/2022)

Ms Heidi Kingstone (02/03/2022)

Miss Alex Webb (02/03/2022)

Miss Elizabeth Kynoch (03/03/2022)

Mr Jim McKinley (03/03/2022)

Ms Amelia Ali (03/03/2022)

Mr Luke Johnson (03/03/2022)

Mr John Walton (SEBRA) (03/03/2022)

Councillor Antonia Cox (04/03/2022)

 

Late representations were received from:

 

Travis Perkins and Unite Students (04/03/2022)

Ms Louise Carter (04/03/2022)

Ms Maureen Stockwell (04/03/2022)

Ms Jenny Rick-Harris (04/03/2022)

Mr Michael Will (04/03/2022)

R W Living (04/03/2022)

Mr Sebastian Nicholas Rosin (04/03/2022)

Miss Beatrice Freedman (05/03/2022)

Ms Dina Lamberton (05/03/2022)

Mr Michael McKay (05/03/2022)

Mrs Mina Bonakdar (05/03/2022)

Mr Jonathan Lass (06/03/2022)

Mr Mike Mannering (06/03/2022)

Mr Anup Karia & Mrs Shriti Karia (07/03/2022)

Mr Paul Hayes (07/03/2022)

Ms Rongchen Tang (07/03/2022)

Ms Rosalind Graham (07/03/2022)

Ms Johanna Orzechowski (07/03/2022)

Ms Kay Buxton – Paddington Partnership (07/03/2022)

Ms Ann Williams (07/03/2022)

Mr Turpin Senou (07/03/22)

Ms Alexandra Juliet Kirsta (08/03/2022)

Ms Anne Von Bennigsen 08/03/2022)

Mr John Zeiger (08/03/2022)

 

Mr Will White addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the application.

Mr Nick Pinney addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the application.

 

Mr Bruce Blair addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Ms Usha Sarma addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Mr John Zealley addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor Heather Acton addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor Matthew Green addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor Melvyn Caplan addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor Lorraine Dean addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor Susie Burbridge addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

 

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY 

 

Councillor Boothroyd removed himself from voting on this application.

 

Subject to referral to the Mayor of London, that permission be refused on the following grounds:

 

1.                                                                                                    Highways and Servicing

2.   Loss of light and increased sense of enclosure

 

It was also agreed that the development would be refused for a third reason, namely:

 

3.  Negative impact on the setting of adjacent heritage assets due to its height and mass.

 

3.1      RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2022 be signed by the Chair as a correct record of proceedings.

 

That the amendments to the full RRO policy outlined below in section 4 be approved: such changes to be brought into effect by the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing under delegated authority on a date of his choosing.

 

The decision is necessary in order to provide the Cabinet Member with a means of approving the changes to the RRO policy referred to in section 4 in in an area of responsibility delegated to the Executive Director.

To approve the business plan for 2022/23 for Westminster Housing Investments Ltd and Westminster Housing Developments Ltd, also known as ‘Westminster Builds’

 

 

 

 

1 Recommendations

 

1.1 For the Shareholder Committee to note the above-mentioned report.

1.     Recommendations

1.1.It is recommended that:

·       Councillor Tony Devenish is removed as Chair, company director and Board member of Westco Trading Limited.

·       Councillor Max Sullivan is appointed as Chair, company director and Board member of Westco Trading Limited.

·       The Company is instructed to make the necessary entries in the statutory books of the Company and to make the necessary filings at Companies House.

 

2.   Reasons for Decision 

 

2.2 Following a review of appointments, the new administration has indicated that it would like to refresh the leadership of Westco. The nominee’s knowledge and experience in the area of communications will ensure continued input and oversight with regard to the strategic and financial direction of the company.

 

To approve the business plan for 2022-23 for Westco Trading Ltd

Councillor Swaddle introduced this budget report and explained that as part of the Council’s annual capital budget cycle, the capital budgets are reprofiled to align with project delivery timeframes and baselines in preparation for setting the following year’s capital strategy.

 

The report seeks Cabinet’s approval of net changes amounting to £17.148m for individual projects as part of the 2021/22 general fund capital budget as well as the re-profiling of £31.858m for individual projects as part of the 2021/22 HRA capital budget. 

 

Councillor Barnes sought assurance that no projects were at risk of having funding dropped and it was explained that there would be minor delays only.

 

Resolved: Cabinet agree to approve net changes of £17.148m for individual projects as part of the 2021/22 general fund capital budget and the re-profiling of £31.858m for individual projects as part of the 2021/22 HRA capital budget

6.1       The Committee received a report which provided an overview of the   proposals set out by Government in the Planning White Paper ‘Planning for    the Future’ and identifies those aspects that would have the most significant             impact on planning in Westminster, should they come forward in the form            currently proposed.

 

6.2       The Planning White Paper proposes significant change to the current        planning system in England. The aims of the White Paper, to increase      housing delivery, speed up and streamline both the plan-making and             decision-making processes and better promote ‘beautiful’ design are            supported. However, the lack of detail in the White Paper leaves significant        questions about how these aspirations are to be achieved and in many             instances further detail will be required following consultation on the White    Paper to fully understand the impact that the proposals will have on the     management of development and the delivery of good growth in Westminster   in the future.

 

6.3       Members held discussion and noted the following: -

 

·       That the three main pillars of the White Paper were Planning for Development, Planning for Beautiful and Sustainability and Planning for infrastructure and Connected Places.

 

·       That local design guidance and design codes would be prepared with community involvement and would shift the debate around design, characteristics and desirability of developments from being considered at the planning application stage to the planning policy setting stage. The White Paper does not provide any definition about ‘localities’ or how areas would be grouped for the purpose of delivering design codes. The Committee noted that this was of high importance as the built environment of the City has a rich variety of buildings of significant design quality and historic interest and it was preferred for design codes to be flexible and allow local input.

 

·       That there was uncertainty on whether there will be any Growth Areas in the City. At present there is no information on how the Growth, Renewal and Protect Areas would be defined. The Committee noted that further clarification on these three Areas would be given after the consultation ends and that it was probable that some part of the City might be deemed to be ‘Growth Areas’.    

 

·       That the Council’s Innovation and Change Service had submitted a response to the consultation regarding the Governments proposed changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need. The Committee noted that there were concerns about the proposed methodology and this was due to the process largely focusing on the maximisation of housing stock, with insufficient regard to the physical, economic and other constraints that can serve to limit housing supply..

 

·       The Planning Service had liaised with Innovation and Change Service regarding responses to the consultation and that local amenity societies and other interested parties had been liaised with to ascertain views about proposed changes and their likely effects on local communities.

 

·       That it was not anticipated that the number of appeals would increase when parts of the Planning White Paper becomes legislation. The Committee noted that the White Paper indicated that there would be regimes within Growth and Renewal areas which may remove the need for full planning applications, with greater consideration of appropriate development in these areas being undertaken at local plan stage or through further expansion of permitted development rights.

 

·       There was a strong indication that conservation areas would continue to be protected and that development in these areas would continue to be assessed under the existing planning regime.

 

·       That development schemes involving the reconversions of office units back into residential units would be largely led by market trends and demands. The Committee noted that there was existing policy which aimed to protect office units and that there had been a considerable reduction in the number of these units. There has been an increase in the demand for smaller local offices in residential areas outside the capital.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. Members considered the contents of the report and noted the possible impacts of the Planning White Paper proposals on future planning plan making and decision making in Westminster.

 

2. That the members of the Committee be provided with a copy of the Council’s response to the Planning White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’.

 

3. That the Committee comments on the proposals listed in the Planning White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ be included in the Council’s response to the consultation.

 

 

Approval, in principle, the use of compulsory purchase powers for the acquisition of the land required for development of Church Street (Site A).  

Councillor Acton introduced this report, emphasising that the Church Street Regeneration scheme is critical to the Council’s drive to address the shortage of affordable housing in the city, delivering 2000 new homes, community spaces and other major benefits. Councillor Acton made clear that any CPO in place would be used only as a last resort and that the focus would remain on working with businesses and residents to acquire the necessary land and buildings on mutually agreeable terms.

 

The report outlines that where the use of compulsory purchase powers are invoked a further detailed report and the proposed Statement of Reasons would come forward to Members setting out the justification for the making of the CPO in question.

 

Councillor Harvey asked how the Council would support those with an emotional attachment to their home to move without invoking the use of compulsory purchase powers. Councillor Acton assured him that extensive support was in place to help residents, with a dedicated team of officers embedded within the local community to better align opportunities with individual needs.

 

Councillor Green noted that the decant of some residents had begun and that there were several families already scheduled to move to new homes nearby on the West End Green site in his ward. Councillor Green noted that the new homes were of a high standard, including accommodation that was dementia friendly.

 

Councillor Robathan reiterated that the regeneration of Church Street is a hugely important scheme for residents but that the use of any compulsory purchase powers must only be as a last resort when all other efforts to reach an agreement had been exhausted.

 

Prior to voting Councillor Robathan asked Hazel Best, the Council’s legal representative, to confirm that Councillor Green was able to participate in voting on this item given his role as Cabinet Member for Planning. Hazel confirmed that there was no conflict as no live planning application.

 

RESOLVED: Cabinet agreed that 'in principle' use of compulsory purchase powers be made available to assemble the land required for the redevelopment of Site A should all reasonable attempts to acquire the necessary land and interests fail.

PROJECT SUMMARY

 

The Covent Garden Neighbourhood Traffic Management Scheme (NTM) involves the

implementation of a series of measures with the objective of reducing through traffic

across the whole Covent Garden district (the district by area is located approx. 70% in City of Westminster (WCC) and 30% in London Borough of Camden (LBC)). These

measures include the introduction of pedestrian and cycle zones, traffic directional

changes and banned turns.

 

It is intended the scheme is implemented on a trial basis using an experimental traffic

order (ETO) with a maximum duration of 18 months. Impacts would be monitored during this trial period and minor changes made where necessary and if a problem is identified.

 

A final public consultation will be held towards the end of the ETO period together with a review of the scheme monitoring data. A further decision will then be sought on whether the scheme should be made permanent.

 

The scheme proposals have undergone extensive stakeholder and public engagement and the level of support is positive across both authorities.

 

WCC have obtained funding from Transport for London to cover the full estimated cost of the scheme following the approval of our funding application in December 2020. This is a WCC led project and has been developed jointly and in close collaboration with LBC.

 

Recommendation

 

This report seeks approval from the Executive Director Environment & City Management to:

 

1.     Proceed to the detailed design and implement the proposals identified in this report, together with capital expenditure set out in the report necessary to implement the proposals.

2.     Further decision making, such as detailed design and minor amendments to the ETO, that do not require further public consultation, are delegated to the Director of City Highways.

 

The scheme covers areas within the City of Westminster as well as within Camden and as such approval to proceed is also being sought in parallel by Camden officers with their respective decision makers. Camden members and officers have been supportive of these proposals from the outset.