Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Room 3.1, 3rd Floor, 5 Strand, London, WC2 5HR. View directions

Contact: Mick Steward, Head of Committee and Governance Services  Tel: 7641 3134; Email:  msteward@westminster.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Welcome

Minutes:

1.1       The Leader welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2.

Declarations of Interest

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.

Minutes:

2.1       Councillor Tim Mitchell, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, declared that in relation to item 4, Leicester Square Development Review – Huguenot House, and item 6, Westminster Chinese Library: Response to Petition that these were in his Ward. However, he did not regard these as a prejudicial interest and remained present to consider these items.

3.

Minutes - 5 June 2017 pdf icon PDF 150 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2017.

Minutes:

3.1     The Leader, with the consent of the Members present, signed the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2017 as a true and correct record of the proceedings.

4.

Leicester Square Development Review - Huguenot House pdf icon PDF 770 KB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.7       Councillor Heather Acton, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services and Public Health, referred to comments made in the Huguenot House Residents’ Association representation in respect of faulty lifts for both the residents’ lift on the Oxendon Street side and the office lift at the Whitcomb Street entrance, fire extinguishers being removed, the feeling that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Ebury Bridge Estate Renewal pdf icon PDF 282 KB

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

Minutes:

5.1       Barbara Brownlee, Director of Housing and Regeneration, presented the report and advised that the City Council had been working with residents of Ebury Bridge since 2010 to redevelop the site. Residents had voted on proposals in 2013 and a planning application had been duly prepared and approved. However, by 2015 it had become clear that the scheme was not commercially viable for developers and a subsequent review of the scheme determined that it was not deliverable.

 

5.2       Barbara Brownlee advised that it was proposed to explore in detail an entirely new scheme and the City Council was commissioning a team to undertake a comprehensive Estate Renewal Options Study, ranging from a refurbishment of the existing buildings to an entire estate redevelopment, in full consultation with residents. The Study would be underpinned by three main themes, these being desirability, viability and feasibility. Members noted the delivery timeline as set out in the table in section 7.8 of the report. Barbara Brownlee added that residents who still wanted to be re-housed following the 2013 vote would have this commitment honoured.

 

5.3       Councillor Robathan commented that although the delay in the redevelopment was regrettable, the proposals demonstrated the City Council’s commitment to redeveloping the Ebury Bridge Estate and there would be comprehensive and constructive engagement with residents to obtain their views. It was hoped that a viable option would be identified by the end of the financial year.

 

5.4       Councillor Acton welcomed the proposals, including the intention to improve the health and wellbeing of residents.

 

5.5       RESOLVED:

 

That Cabinet:

 

1.            Authorised spend to explore and work-up renewal options with the community which are both commercially viable and meet the aspirations of the residents.

 

2.         Agreed the assessment criteria for testing options as set out in Section 5 of the report.

 

3.         Agreed that officers work with residents to reach a preferred option.

 

4.         Agreed that the Council continue to honour the rehousing commitments made to both tenants and leaseholders within the existing scheme.

 

5.         Agreed to bring a Cabinet report forward outlining a preferred option following the comprehensive period of engagement.

 

5.6       Reasons for Decision

 

1.            The Estate is one of five priority housing estates identified in the City Council’s Housing Renewal Strategy 2010, noted as requiring improvement and significant investment over the next five years.

 

2.         The aim of regenerating the Ebury Bridge Estate is to bring about long term physical, economic and social sustainability of the area, and to create a high quality, mixed use urban neighbourhood that is attractive to residents and visitors alike, integrates successfully with the surrounding area and delivers a significant number of new homes in line with the Leader’s City for All 2017/18 priorities.

 

3.         An entirely new scheme is required to meet the aspirations of residents by providing innovative affordable tenure solutions, attracting the market through commercial viability, balance demand on the Housing Revenue Account, and deliver a development of exceptional quality driven by scale, value, quality and underpinned by design principles that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Westminster Chinese Library: Response to Petition pdf icon PDF 239 KB

Report of the Executive Director of City Management and Communities, attached.

Minutes:

6.1       Mike Clarke, Tri-borough Director of Libraries and Archives, presented the report and advised that the library service was being remodelled as part of proposals to save £750,000 in revenue costs and ensure the service is sustainable in the future. The Chinese library service had a strong focus on community partnership, including through hosting events. In referring to the petition, Mike Clarke confirmed that there were no plans to close the Chinese library service at Charing Cross Hospital, as had erroneously been claimed on social media. Efforts would be made to communicate plans for the Chinese library service more clearly and engagement would continue with the Chinese community groups and also with Friends of Charing Cross Library who had organised and submitted the petition.

 

6.2       Councillor David Harvey advised that the City Council remained nationally the highest spender in library services according to statistics that were available. He had met with the Political Secretary of the Chinese Embassy who was aware that there were no plans to make cuts to the Chinese library service and that there had been erroneous claims in social media in respect of this. Councillor Harvey stated that there would be further engagement with the Chinese community in taking forward the future of the Chinese library service.

 

6.3       Councillor Mitchell, in noting that Charing Cross Library was in his Ward, welcomed future engagement with Chinese community groups and Friends of Charing Cross Library on the Chinese library service.

 

6.4       RESOLVED:

 

6.5       That Cabinet:

 

1.            Noted the receipt of a petition relating to the Chinese library service at Charing Cross library.

 

2.            Endorsed the actions set out in the report as the response to the petition and the petitioners be advised accordingly.

 

6.6       Reasons for Decision

 

The report seeks confirmation that the Cabinet is confident in the decision making process that was in place in relation to the changes to the library service and that officers should continue to engage with a wide range of Chinese community groups in relation to the library service.

7.

Fees and Charges pdf icon PDF 497 KB

Report of the City Treasurer (To Follow)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.1     Steven Mair, City Treasurer, presented the report and began by stating that fees and charges were a major part of the City Council’s overall budget and he advised that there were no proposals to change policy. He advised that the confidential appendix set out where there were proposed changes to fees and charges.

 

7.2     Councillor Mitchell emphasised the importance of undertaking a rigorous examination of fees and charges on an annual basis in order to ensure that these were up to date and comparable with other local authorities. He added that fees and charges also played an important role in helping to achieve costs and savings targets.

 

7.3     Councillor Davis MBE, DL, confirmed that he was content with the proposed fees and charges that related to his portfolio.

 

7.4     RESOLVED:

 

1.               That Cabinet:

 

a)          Approved changes to fees and charges as outlined in Appendix 3 of the report.

 

b)          Noted changes already approved by other committees/members for 2017/18 highlighted in section 6 of this report and in Appendix 2.

 

c)          Noted fees for which no increase is proposed for 2017/18, with details of such fees included in Appendix 2 of this report.

 

d)          Noted overall proposed contribution from fees and charges to the Medium Term Plan (MTP) for 2017/18 and 2018/19 as highlighted in table 2 of section 7 of this report.

 

e)          Agreed that all areas of fees and charges work towards alignment of date of approval and that this is coordinated on an annual basis as part of an annual Fees and Charges report.

 

f)            Noted the fees and charges policy as set out at Appendix 1 of the report.

 

2.               That Appendix 2 and 3 be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended information relating to the financial and business affairs of the authority; and

 

3.               That the information set out in Appendix 2 of the report be noted.

 

7.5     Reasons for Decision

 

To agree the Council’s fees and charges policy and position.

8.

Any Other Business

Minutes:

8.1       There was no other business.